Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > General Discussion Section > Polls and Surveys
Articles Chat Room Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files



Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2012, 01:30 PM
Firebird Firebird is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,931
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 4,271 Times in 2,523 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by juskom95 View Post
Not an insult to civilians. Some people would rather follow, be lead than think for themselves. There are those kinds in the military as well.
How does this bear on the question posed by the OP?

Quote:
There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?
Also, answer the OP's question, if you don't mind.

Why have you left out a significant part of the Oath of Enlistment in your profile?

Quote:
I do solemnly swear 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;
Are you a so-called Oath Keeper?
Old 11-21-2012, 01:32 PM
ChapNelson's Avatar
ChapNelson ChapNelson is offline
Philosoprepper
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Varies
Posts: 2,828
Thanks: 4,139
Thanked 5,383 Times in 1,721 Posts
Default

I've taken the enlisted oath many times, and administered it frequently. Presently I am under the officer's oath, which reads as follows:

Quote:
I, [name], 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.
Please notice the consistency in both oaths - support and defend the Constitution. Not the government, not the political structure, not a particular party that happens to be in power. Not any other documents that follow, to include SCOTUS interpretations. Just simply the Constitution.

However, you may have noticed that obedience to the orders of the President, or anyone else, are not in this oath. The burden of the text, upon an officer, is to remain fit, of clear commitment, to the execution of the defense of the Constitution. Any officer who fails to rise to the occasion in defense of the Constitution, against all enemies, is subject to all manner of discipline to include death, for abandoning his post in the face of the enemy. And it is because of the difference in this oath, that I must take charge to make sure my enlisted folk are not placed in the dilemma of contravening their oath in the face of unconstitutional orders.

I do not understand why this is unclear; it was certainly very clear to those who wrote and ratified this oath.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ChapNelson For This Useful Post:
Old 11-21-2012, 01:42 PM
Firebird Firebird is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,931
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 4,271 Times in 2,523 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChapNelson View Post
I've taken the enlisted oath many times, and administered it frequently. Presently I am under the officer's oath, which reads as follows:



Please notice the consistency in both oaths - support and defend the Constitution. Not the government, not the political structure, not a particular party that happens to be in power. Not any other documents that follow, to include SCOTUS interpretations. Just simply the Constitution.

However, you may have noticed that obedience to the orders of the President, or anyone else, are not in this oath. The burden of the text, upon an officer, is to remain fit, of clear commitment, to the execution of the defense of the Constitution. Any officer who fails to rise to the occasion in defense of the Constitution, against all enemies, is subject to all manner of discipline to include death, for abandoning his post in the face of the enemy. And it is because of the difference in this oath, that I must take charge to make sure my enlisted folk are not placed in the dilemma of contravening their oath in the face of unconstitutional orders.

I do not understand why this is unclear; it was certainly very clear to those who wrote and ratified this oath.
From whom do the officers receive their commissions and warrants?
Old 11-21-2012, 01:55 PM
Firebird Firebird is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,931
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 4,271 Times in 2,523 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChapNelson View Post
I've taken the enlisted oath many times, and administered it frequently. Presently I am under the officer's oath, which reads as follows:



Please notice the consistency in both oaths - support and defend the Constitution. Not the government, not the political structure, not a particular party that happens to be in power. Not any other documents that follow, to include SCOTUS interpretations. Just simply the Constitution.

However, you may have noticed that obedience to the orders of the President, or anyone else, are not in this oath. The burden of the text, upon an officer, is to remain fit, of clear commitment, to the execution of the defense of the Constitution. Any officer who fails to rise to the occasion in defense of the Constitution, against all enemies, is subject to all manner of discipline to include death, for abandoning his post in the face of the enemy. And it is because of the difference in this oath, that I must take charge to make sure my enlisted folk are not placed in the dilemma of contravening their oath in the face of unconstitutional orders.

I do not understand why this is unclear; it was certainly very clear to those who wrote and ratified this oath.
Also, what is your response to the OP?

Quote:
There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?
Old 11-21-2012, 02:36 PM
Just Jeff's Avatar
Just Jeff Just Jeff is offline
Stop YOLOing
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,302
Thanks: 4,610
Thanked 3,190 Times in 934 Posts
Default

Good God...I wondered where the Topic Police ran off to...apparently a self-appointed moderator in this thread, with an axe to grind.

Quit being a **** and you'll likely get more constructive responses.

I'm with Chap on not understanding what's confusing about this. My oath is to no President or government...it's to the Constitution, in the spirit of protecting rights for "We the People.". Those are the citizens, in case that's not clear enough.

Honestly, the only place I've seen this become an issue is with the non-military people on this board. And if you ARE military (or former mil), then you should have taken care to understand the oath before you swore it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Just Jeff For This Useful Post:
Old 11-21-2012, 02:53 PM
Firebird Firebird is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,931
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 4,271 Times in 2,523 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Jeff View Post
Good God...I wondered where the Topic Police ran off to...apparently a self-appointed moderator in this thread, with an axe to grind.
It seems I've touched a nerve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Jeff View Post
Quit being a **** and you'll likely get more constructive responses.
Piss off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Jeff View Post
I'm with Chap on not understanding what's confusing about this. My oath is to no President or government...it's to the Constitution, in the spirit of protecting rights for "We the People."
You apparently can't read:

Quote:
I, (name)
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
Continuing ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Jeff View Post
Honestly, the only place I've seen this become an issue is with the non-military people on this board. And if you ARE military (or former mil), then you should have taken care to understand the oath before you swore it.
Why don't you address the OP? I have:

http://www.survivalistboards.com/sho...1&postcount=51
Old 11-21-2012, 03:10 PM
Cryptkeeper's Avatar
Cryptkeeper Cryptkeeper is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,754
Thanks: 4,518
Thanked 5,058 Times in 2,565 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Simcox View Post
There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?

many ppl dont realize /think if your in the military they control the flow of information you will be recieveing and will Lie to you to get you to do what needs to be done. Odds are back then 90% of the military would have follow orders because they would be lied to about why they are doing what they are doing. However now days ALOT more ppl in the military are awake and are keeping a close eye on whats going on.Information flows alot faster and easier than it did and its alot harder for the chain of command to hide the truth. I know ALOT of the ppl in the military have already been talking about "what if" and many have already made up their minds what they will do if given such orders.

This is a question no1 really knows the answer to not even the ppl who may refuse to obey those orders.
Old 11-21-2012, 03:14 PM
Firebird Firebird is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,931
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 4,271 Times in 2,523 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebird View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChapNelson View Post
I've taken the enlisted oath many times, and administered it frequently. Presently I am under the officer's oath, which reads as follows:

Quote:
I, [name], 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.
Please notice the consistency in both oaths - support and defend the Constitution. Not the government, not the political structure, not a particular party that happens to be in power. Not any other documents that follow, to include SCOTUS interpretations. Just simply the Constitution.

However, you may have noticed that obedience to the orders of the President, or anyone else, are not in this oath. The burden of the text, upon an officer, is to remain fit, of clear commitment, to the execution of the defense of the Constitution. Any officer who fails to rise to the occasion in defense of the Constitution, against all enemies, is subject to all manner of discipline to include death, for abandoning his post in the face of the enemy. And it is because of the difference in this oath, that I must take charge to make sure my enlisted folk are not placed in the dilemma of contravening their oath in the face of unconstitutional orders.

I do not understand why this is unclear; it was certainly very clear to those who wrote and ratified this oath.
From whom do the officers receive their commissions and warrants?
Just so there's no doubt on this point, I'll answer my own question:

Commissioned officers:

Quote:
(1) Original appointments in the grades of second lieutenant, first lieutenant, and captain in the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, and Regular Marine Corps and in the grades of ensign, lieutenant (junior grade), and lieutenant in the Regular Navy shall be made by the President alone.

(2) Original appointments in the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel in the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, and Regular Marine Corps and in the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain in the Regular Navy shall be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

[10 USC 531 (a)]
Warrant officers:

Quote:
Appointments in the grade of regular warrant officer, W1, shall be made by warrant, except that with respect to an armed force under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary concerned may provide by regulation that appointments in that grade in that armed force shall be made by commission.

Appointments in regular chief warrant officer grades shall be made by commission by the President, and appointments (whether by warrant or commission) in the grade of regular warrant officer, W1, shall be made by the President, except that appointments in that grade in the Coast Guard shall be made by the Secretary concerned.

[10 USC 571 (b)]
Old 11-21-2012, 03:23 PM
Tenfeathers's Avatar
Tenfeathers Tenfeathers is offline
Remember The Alamo
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Crawford ,Texas
Posts: 3,600
Thanks: 1,379
Thanked 5,100 Times in 1,928 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDH View Post
Two words, Kent State.
Most people now days don't have a clue about Kent State
Old 11-21-2012, 03:38 PM
9111315's Avatar
9111315 9111315 is offline
Plan Z: Run!
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: central America
Posts: 12,487
Thanks: 14,521
Thanked 17,425 Times in 7,372 Posts
Default

Barbie State?
__________________
.
==]:*']
.
.

I have a Flux Capacitor to backup everything I say!
Old 11-21-2012, 03:43 PM
Oathkeeper123's Avatar
Oathkeeper123 Oathkeeper123 is offline
*** Bless America
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 401
Thanks: 109
Thanked 413 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Simcox View Post
There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?
I just don't see regular troops doing this. Maybe special op's to a point or homeland security. They certainly wouldn't do it at the local level as that would never fly.
Old 11-21-2012, 05:38 PM
Firebird Firebird is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,931
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 4,271 Times in 2,523 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oathkeeper123 View Post
I just don't see regular troops doing this. [ ... ]
I'm sure there's a stockade or two for those who won't play ball.

Quote:
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

[10 USC 333]
Old 11-21-2012, 05:53 PM
JDH's Avatar
JDH JDH is offline
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,650
Thanks: 161
Thanked 3,412 Times in 1,401 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenfeathers View Post
Most people now days don't have a clue about Kent State
I know. I would hope they were curious enough to google it. Yes, sometimes I have delusions that people still do care about the past and not just what time Idol or Jersey Shore comes on next.
Old 11-21-2012, 06:16 PM
ChapNelson's Avatar
ChapNelson ChapNelson is offline
Philosoprepper
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Varies
Posts: 2,828
Thanks: 4,139
Thanked 5,383 Times in 1,721 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebird View Post
From whom do the officers receive their commissions and warrants?
Quote:
Commissioned Officers (O-1 through O-10 second lieutenant or ensign through general or admiral, and W-2 through W-5 (chief warrant officers)) are commissioned under the authority of the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, Warrant Officers (WO-1) are given a warrant under the authority of their respective Service Secretary (e.g. Secretary of the Army), National Guard officers are additionally committed to the authority of the governor of their state.
Once commissioned, officers may only have their commission revoked by the President, as a result of UCMJ proceedings.

The oath, however, much like that taken by each of the SCOTUS members who are also appointed by the President under the advice and consent of the Senate, places the officer under the authority of the Constitution directly along with the President and all other "officers" of the government. That is why the enlisted oath places them under the orders of officers. Constitution, Article 2.
Old 11-21-2012, 06:18 PM
ChapNelson's Avatar
ChapNelson ChapNelson is offline
Philosoprepper
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Varies
Posts: 2,828
Thanks: 4,139
Thanked 5,383 Times in 1,721 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebird View Post
Just so there's no doubt on this point, I'll answer my own question:

Commissioned officers:



Warrant officers:
Your point then? Same process as all Officers of the government. Are you saying that SCOTUS answers to the President, and must obey his orders even when they contravene the Constitution to which they've taken an oath?
Old 11-21-2012, 06:45 PM
cwbys4evr cwbys4evr is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 592
Thanks: 156
Thanked 573 Times in 245 Posts
Default

I'm pretty sure it's against the law for troops to fire upon U.S. citizens. If so, then whoever is giving the order is giving an unlawful order, which is not to be obeyed. You decide ahead of time that you are never going to let any officer or official order you to do something illegal. Those kinds of orders are invalid.
Old 11-21-2012, 07:06 PM
Firebird Firebird is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,931
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 4,271 Times in 2,523 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChapNelson View Post
Your point then? [ ... ]
Keeping in mind the question posed by the OP ...

Quote:
There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?
... my point is that military personnel, enlisted and officer, all of whom are under the authority of the President of the United States (to include the current one) could well find themselves engaging fellow U.S. citizens:

Quote:
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy [ ... ]

[10 USC 333]
Old 11-21-2012, 07:09 PM
Firebird Firebird is offline
This is a great survival forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,931
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 4,271 Times in 2,523 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwbys4evr View Post
I'm pretty sure it's against the law for troops to fire upon U.S. citizens. If so, then whoever is giving the order is giving an unlawful order, which is not to be obeyed. You decide ahead of time that you are never going to let any officer or official order you to do something illegal. Those kinds of orders are invalid.
How sure are you that it's against the law for troops to fire upon U.S. citizens?
Old 11-21-2012, 08:02 PM
zatoichi's Avatar
zatoichi zatoichi is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 3,878
Thanks: 11,860
Thanked 3,593 Times in 1,806 Posts
Default

I think I could shoot another American but I am very glad I never was ordered to do that.
Old 12-16-2012, 10:11 AM
JBryan314's Avatar
JBryan314 JBryan314 is offline
Recent Blog:
Soldier, Patriot
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Fort Hood, Texas
Age: 28
Posts: 2,159
Thanks: 2,250
Thanked 4,172 Times in 1,323 Posts
Default

I would fight with the Constitution and anyone who supported it. The Constitution IS the government. Not the idiots who are sitting in DC.
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
this guy fought for his country....... Robb General Discussion 7 07-24-2012 02:28 PM
He fought he law... and he won FXjohn Political News and Discussion 1 06-20-2012 08:38 PM
I Fought For You 2.0Dogs General Discussion 1 08-12-2010 09:34 AM
Next World War would be fought over this? svxak47 General Discussion 16 09-12-2009 02:45 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Kevin Felts 2006 - 2012,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net


This site is Gunny Approved