| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
....if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the
Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? So according to you I am somehow not living up to my oath because I "allow" anarchists to plan "protests"? Exactly how, imbecile? LOL! Here, let's have you read it: The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH Here, let's have you read it: The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic,.. that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" I will support, defend and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Period. Nothing to do with government is stated. And that is, BTW, intentional. The enlisted version (the first one) simply states (if you are referring to the part about the President of the United States) they swear that they will follow the orders of the military chain of command. Here, let's have you read it: The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm- |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH Cheney Misstates Military Oath David R. Henderson Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated: "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in." Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take: "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/ And a note from the far right-wing whackos: The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle- class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service. Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service." Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!] http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 15 Sep, 21:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH Cheney Misstates Military Oath David R. Henderson Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated: "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in." Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take: "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/ And a note from the far right-wing whackos: The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle- class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service. Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service." Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!] http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution. that 'is' the United States. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 21:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH Cheney Misstates Military Oath David R. Henderson Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated: "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in." Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take: "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/ And a note from the far right-wing whackos: The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle- class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service. Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service." Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!] http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution. that 'is' the United States. Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to defend the Constitution of the US. The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH Cheney Misstates Military Oath David R. Henderson Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated: "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in." Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take: "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/ And a note from the far right-wing whackos: The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle- class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service. Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service." Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!] http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution. that 'is' the United States. Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to defend the Constitution of the US. The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. Stephen |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 6:41*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on. The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. Clyde's argument is amazingly 2pid-like. Clyde, if you want to insist that swearing to defend the Constitution is tantamount to swearing to defend a particular administration, you go girl. The scholars and military professionals who study such things disagree. I trust them more than you and your beer-addled reasoning. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH Cheney Misstates Military Oath David R. Henderson Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated: "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in." Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take: "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/ And a note from the far right-wing whackos: The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle- class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service. Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service." Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!] http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution. that 'is' the United States. Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to defend the Constitution of the US. The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- the Constitution empowers the government, if you have no allegiance to the government of the US, you have no allegieance to'the Constitution that empowered it, you are just thumbing your nose at it. By refusing allegiance to the government, you are saying the Constitution is worthless in its main purpiose, which is to give power and legitamicy to the government. I really don't care whether or not you'have allegiance to the government, but just don't honk on about having allegiamne to'the Constitutiion, you don't. I don't throw off my allegiance when we have a President I might not happen to like, say, such as Clinton. During Clinton's tenure, I was still allegiant to the government and to his Presidency. I didn't have to like him, or his policies, but I was allegiant to the government that he was President of. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. No, it enables it and legitimizes it. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in. Last time I looked, that was part of our government. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 16:14, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 6:41*am, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on. The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. Clyde's argument is amazingly 2pid-like. Clyde, if you want to insist that swearing to defend the Constitution is tantamount to swearing to defend a particular administration, you go girl. If the administration's actions are within the scope of Constitutional empowerment, then it is the government taking such action. If you are not allegiant to the government taking Constitutionally legal actions, than you are not allegiant to the Constitution. You don't have to agree that those actions are correct policy, but as an officer, you have to follow the constititionally empowered course of action determined by the appropriate authorities, be it the Executive branch, the Congress, or the Courts. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul - I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. No, it enables it and legitimizes it. But it is not the government itself. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in. Except when it doesn't. Last time I looked, that was part of our government. Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court? Stephen |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. Repeating it doesn't make it correct and you have it backward. If you pledge to the government, like the Justice Department's "loyal Bushies," you disdain the Constitution. Stephen |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul - I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. That is not a valid argument. Look at it this way to understand why: "If A, then B" "Not B, therefore not A" This is a totally and conclusively invalid form of argument. Go study "Logic 101" to understand why. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 5:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 16:14, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 6:41*am, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on. The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. Clyde's argument is amazingly 2pid-like. Clyde, if you want to insist that swearing to defend the Constitution is tantamount to swearing to defend a particular administration, you go girl. If the administration's actions are within the scope of Constitutional empowerment, then it is the government taking such action. If you are not allegiant to the government taking Constitutionally legal actions, than you are not allegiant to the Constitution. Clyde, don't take my word for it. Go ask people you trust, and who you are sure that served. ;-) The oath omitted "allegiance" to the politicians/government for good reason. You don't have to agree that those actions are correct policy, but as an officer, you have to follow the constititionally empowered course of action determined by the appropriate authorities, be it the Executive *branch, the Congress, or the Courts. Not according to the right-wing whacko I quoted from the GOP website. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 5:13*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. No, it enables it and legitimizes it. But it is not the government itself. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in. Except when it doesn't. Last time I looked, that was part of our government. Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court? I wonder why the oath isn't "to defend the Constitution (and the US government) against all enemies..." That would solve it for Clyde. ;-) |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 4:47*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH Cheney Misstates Military Oath David R. Henderson Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated: "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in." Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take: "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/ And a note from the far right-wing whackos: The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle- class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service. Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service." Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!] http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution. that 'is' the United States. Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to defend the Constitution of the US. The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- the Constitution empowers the government, if you have no allegiance to the government of the US, you have no allegieance to'the Constitution that empowered it, you are just thumbing your nose at it. By refusing allegiance to the government, you are saying the Constitution is worthless in its main purpiose, which is to give power and legitamicy to the government. I really don't care whether or not you'have allegiance to the government, but just don't honk on about having allegiamne to'the Constitutiion, you don't. I don't throw off my allegiance when we have a President I might not happen to like, say, such as Clinton. During Clinton's tenure, I was still allegiant to the government and to his Presidency. I didn't have to like him, or his policies, but I was allegiant to the government that he was President of. You're mixing up politics with the oath of office, which the oath specifically avoids. Other countries might swear allegiance to a particular government or leader. North Korea might, for example. Monarchies might be another example. He All recruits to the British Army and Royal Air Force must take an oath of allegiance upon joining these armed forces, a process known as "attestation". Those who believe in God use the following words: “ I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
Shhhh! said: “ I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 18:13, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. No, it enables it and legitimizes it. But it is not the government itself. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in. Except when it doesn't. Last time I looked, that was part of our government. Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court? when a military man swears allegiance to the Constitution. it is swearing allegiance to our form of government and to the governmental institutions created by the Constitution. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 18:19, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. Repeating it doesn't make it correct and you have it backward. If you pledge to the government, like the Justice Department's "loyal Bushies," you disdain the Constitution. We will leave that to the Supreme Court to decide. I see that you don't really believe in the Constitution. You have no allegiance to it. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius
wrote: Shhhh! said: “ I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. As is this: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. and Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Oath_of_Office I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 19:18, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul - I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. That is not a valid argument. Look at it this way to understand why: "If A, then B" "Not B, therefore not A" This is a totally and conclusively invalid form of argument. Go study "Logic 101" to understand why.- Your only argument is that you believe our 'government is Unconstitutional. You must believe that either the President, COngress and/or the Supreme Court lack legitimacy. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 19:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 5:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 16:14, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 6:41*am, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on. The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. Clyde's argument is amazingly 2pid-like. Clyde, if you want to insist that swearing to defend the Constitution is tantamount to swearing to defend a particular administration, you go girl. If the administration's actions are within the scope of Constitutional empowerment, then it is the government taking such action. If you are not allegiant to the government taking Constitutionally legal actions, than you are not allegiant to the Constitution. Clyde, don't take my word for it. Go ask people you trust, and who you are sure that served. ;-) The oath omitted "allegiance" to the politicians/government for good reason. You don't have to agree that those actions are correct policy, but as an officer, you have to follow the constititionally empowered course of action determined by the appropriate authorities, be it the Executive *branch, the Congress, or the Courts. Not according to the right-wing whacko I quoted from the GOP website I don't care about your right wing wacko GOP friends, nor your left wing wacko Democratic friends. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 19:22, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 5:13*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. No, it enables it and legitimizes it. But it is not the government itself. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in. Except when it doesn't. Last time I looked, that was part of our government. Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court? I wonder why the oath isn't "to defend the Constitution (and the US government) against all enemies..." That would solve it for Clyde. ;-)- LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not exactly, it would both solve it and bring it to a successful conclusion!!!! |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 19:31, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 4:47*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH Cheney Misstates Military Oath David R. Henderson Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated: "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in." Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take: "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/ And a note from the far right-wing whackos: The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle- class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service. Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service.." Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!] http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution. that 'is' the United States. Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to defend the Constitution of the US. The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- the Constitution empowers the government, if you have no allegiance to the government of the US, you have no allegieance to'the Constitution that empowered it, you are just thumbing your nose at it. By refusing allegiance to the government, you are saying the Constitution is worthless in its main purpiose, which is to give power and legitamicy to the government. I really don't care whether or not you'have allegiance to the government, but just don't honk on about having allegiamne to'the Constitutiion, you don't. I don't throw off my allegiance when we have a President I might not happen to like, say, such as Clinton. During Clinton's tenure, I was still allegiant to the government and to his Presidency. I didn't have to like him, or his policies, but I was allegiant to the government that he was President of. You're mixing up politics with the oath of office, which the oath specifically avoids. Other countries might swear allegiance to a particular government or leader. *North Korea might, for example. Monarchies might be another example. He All recruits to the British Army and Royal Air Force must take an oath of allegiance upon joining these armed forces, a process known as "attestation". Those who believe in God use the following words: “ I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-)- Ascunde citatul - The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to the Constitution of the United States. It is therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten" or de facto constitution. In the US, the President is the President, he is not the embodiment of the government. By swearing allegiance to the Constitution, one is swearing allegiance our forms of government and to the instiutuions of govermment, one of which is the Presidency. So, one is swearing allegiance to the "Office of the President", among other governmental institutions, not the the specific personage of the President. That is quite different than in a Monarchy. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 20:36, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said: “ I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. I asume that SHHH! includes the drafters of' the Constituion as among our Founding Fathers, so he is correct in that. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 21:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: “ I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. As is this: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. and Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I agree with you on that. I never said it was to defend any particular territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rvices_Oath_of... I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL.- Yeah, the Government is the embodiment of our Constitution. The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. So, when you swear allegiance to the Constitution, your are swearkng allegiance to the government. That is the whole point of'the Constitution, to make our government. You cannot swear allegiance to the Constitution without swearing allegiance to the government. the Constitution is absolutely meaningless without our government. If you ahve no allegiance to the government, you just can't have any allegiance to the Constitution. UNLESS you want to argue that the government we have is not the same government as prescribed by the Constitution. Do you want to go there? |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 18:13, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. No, it enables it and legitimizes it. But it is not the government itself. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in. Except when it doesn't. Last time I looked, that was part of our government. Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court? when a military man swears allegiance to the Constitution. it is swearing allegiance to our form of government and to the governmental institutions created by the Constitution. Not in preference to the Constitution itself. Stephen |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 18:19, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. Repeating it doesn't make it correct and you have it backward. If you pledge to the government, like the Justice Department's "loyal Bushies," you disdain the Constitution. We will leave that to the Supreme Court to decide. I see that you don't really believe in the Constitution. You have no allegiance to it. You see what you want. Stephen |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 21:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: ³ I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. As is this: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. and Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I agree with you on that. I never said it was to defend any particular territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rvices_Oath_of... I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL.- Yeah, the Government is the embodiment of our Constitution. The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. So, when you swear allegiance to the Constitution, your are swearkng allegiance to the government. That is the whole point of'the Constitution, to make our government. You cannot swear allegiance to the Constitution without swearing allegiance to the government. the Constitution is absolutely meaningless without our government. If you ahve no allegiance to the government, you just can't have any allegiance to the Constitution. UNLESS you want to argue that the government we have is not the same government as prescribed by the Constitution. Do you want to go there? Since the government can act un-Constitutionally, your argument fails. Stephen |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 8:40*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
In the US, the President is the President, he is not the embodiment of the government. By swearing allegiance to the Constitution, one is swearing allegiance [to] our forms (sic) of government I'll agree with this, but this is not the same as "swearing allegiance to the government". Your argument about swearing allegiance to the government is incorrect. As Stephen points out, the government can act unconstitutionally. As Wiki points out, military officers are sworn to disobey unconstitutional orders, which is why officers do not swear to obey every order they receive in the Officer's Oath of Office. Your argument is "If one has sworn to allegiance to, and to defend, the Constitution, one must also swear to allegiance to, and to defend, the government. It is not the case that one swears allegiance to the government. Therefore, one has not sworn allegiance to the Constitution." Take this to any elementary logic teacher and tell them there's this guy in the US who doesn't buy your argument. LoL. You can try to twist, you can try to change the meaning, but there is one thing you cannot be: correct about this. Sorry! |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 8:31*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 19:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" You don't have to agree that those actions are correct policy, but as an officer, you have to follow the constititionally empowered course of action determined by the appropriate authorities, be it the Executive *branch, the Congress, or the Courts. Not according to the right-wing whacko I quoted from the GOP website I don't care about your right wing wacko GOP friends, nor your left wing wacko Democratic friends. Consider this, Clyde: An order comes down from the President, the DOD, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, or any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity: "Take the prisoners of war out behind the woodshed and shoot them all, without a trial and without charges." If I follow that order, I am not defending the US constitution. According to you, if I do not follow that order, I am not defending the US Constitution. Get it? |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 8:25*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 18:13, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is based on.- Ascunde citatul - The Constitution is the authority of the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities and their powers. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to the government. The basic purpose of the Constitution is to organize and empower our government. Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows, that is, primarily, our government. Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government. No, it enables it and legitimizes it. But it is not the government itself. The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in the way of something the government wants to do. What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in. Except when it doesn't. Last time I looked, that was part of our government. Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court? when a military man swears allegiance to the Constitution. it is swearing allegiance to our form of government If you had stopped here you would have been better off. |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
Clyde Slick said: The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. My reading of the Amendments (especially the first five) leads me to an entirely different conclusion. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 8:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 19:18, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul - I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. That is not a valid argument. Look at it this way to understand why: "If A, then B" "Not B, therefore not A" This is a totally and conclusively invalid form of argument. Go study "Logic 101" to understand why.- Your only argument is that you believe our 'government is Unconstitutional. Nope. You must believe that either the President, COngress *and/or the Supreme Court lack legitimacy. The form or the actual people who temporarily fill the position? I am sworn to defend the form, not the people who fill them. Get it? |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 8:26*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 18:19, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. Repeating it doesn't make it correct and you have it backward. If you pledge to the government, like the Justice Department's "loyal Bushies," you disdain the Constitution. We will leave that to the Supreme Court to decide. I see that you don't really believe in the Constitution. You have no allegiance to it. Your blind patriotism is dangerous. As is your fundamental misunderstanding of the military oath. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| 2pid, I really want to know | Audio Opinions | |||
| OK, 2pid... | Audio Opinions | |||
| 2pid... | Audio Opinions | |||
| Say, 2pid, have you seen this? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
