Leaderboard

I'm not sure that the CinC knows. Or if he knows, he doesn't care.

It’s entertaining seeing Gavin Newsom taking trump on in his own turf. "DONALD TRUMP HAS 24 HOURS LEFT TO RESPOND TO GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S LETTER. IF HE DOES NOT STAND DOWN, THERE WILL BE A VERY IMPORTANT PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH A MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER."

Anyone can "nominate" somebody for any of the Nobel prizes. That means nothing. The Nobel committees select the winner, and it doesn't matter how many "nominations" someone may have. We had a chemistry professor here who was quite enamored of himself, and he would get his friends to "nominate" him every year. He even had on his website "Nominated for the Chemistry Nobel Prize 10 years in a row!!". All bullshit. He never won of course. Also it's considered to be quite gauche to lobby for a Nobel Prize. Of course "gauche" is Trump's middle name (or one of them).

It was a factual answer. You were focused on the oath and not the mission of each. Big difference. The Code of Conduct for each is different. Their code of conduct stemmed from Kent State. How is your dissecting the constitution any different than Trump's version. You get to pick and choose what you like. The constitution needs to remain sacred albeit flawed. The courts are more well versed at interpretations. Your example of the Marines is a good one. The courts stopped them from doing anything more than protecting three federal buildings. Personally, I sing the praises of the ACLU, They help keep things in check. You may not know, but since Calley, the miltiary started giving classes in 1971 to everyone from West Point to Basic training on issuing/following legal vs. illegal orders. In 1974, I went to basic. An attorney from JAG came to give us the class. At the end, he gave us a business card to call if someone issued an orde that you "thought" might be illegal for us to get legal counsel. Some soldiers today don't understand why legal is involved at the unit level. It's for this reason.

Fine. Then why did you give this glib answer: "I was regular Army, not National Guard. My job was outside the US borders". So all of that explanation aside, tell us: did the marines deployed to Los Angeles follow lawful orders? Yes, because it was under a defensible, but patently false, pretext? Yes, even if you knew it was to police not protect and you knew that many of your fellows might well go way beyond that if ordered and that any right or wrong would be decided well after the fact in, if there ever was one, a court of law? Thanks for the homework and I'm happy you stood up but it is a lot more complicated than the deep details of an oath that most cannot recall or think matters when orders are given. My position stands: the police and the military will be the instruments of the undoing of our democracy, if it happens, and nothing in your explanation would prevent that truth.

Trump has shown that the constitution is a paper tiger when it concerns rights. Congress shows little duty to the intent or word of the constitution. The USSC seems to ignore or interpret the constitution as it sees fit.

It seems to me that a problem with the argument that soldiers take an oath to not obey unlawful orders is that it requires everybody to be able to discern an unlawful order. If several soldiers are ordered to execute a group of unarmed prisoners, and 19 soldiers refuse the order but 1 obeys the unarmed prisoners will still end up dead. You need 100% compliance. An order as extreme as "shoot all the prisoners" may be obviously illegal if it comes from some sergeant, but something less extreme may not be so obvious even if a court were to eventually rule that the act was illegal, and even an extreme act may be of uncertain legality if it comes from the president. This Supreme Court seems to be taking the position that the President can do anything, even if it violates the plain language of the constitution, and they are immune from prosecution. In the case of birthright citizenship , for example, their ruling was that people have to comply for now, and maybe eventually they will get around to deciding if the executive order was lawful. If your career depends on following lawful orders, and the "lawful" part is ambiguous, there will always be people (lots of people) who will choose to follow the order.

Our Second Amendment is a misinterpreted joke that any 3rd grader without a dog in the fight would likely read more correctly. No sane person has ever explained to me why, in this case of Constitutional originalism ONLY, tossing out the first two parts and keeping the second two parts was obviously what the framers intended. So to satisfy your curiosity, I take exception to certain interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Regular Marines were sent to LA. I ask again, would you refuse or salute and go?

The myth of American exceptionalism is now dead thanks to the American people allowing it to be killed. The once great shining example of the American Constitution with its separation of powers has been turned into a hollow empty promise. Trump did not do this alone and the midterm elections are not going to undo any of his outrageous actions. The die is cast.