Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
There's nothing vague about an enlistment contract, the UCMJ nor the regulation about comments made about the President. Sorry.
when people who have made an oath to uphold the principles of our constitution, punish a man for exercising the liberties acconolaged by that constitution, there is most definitely something vague about the terms of the contract.
Posted here for the ignorant:
I, ___________________________________, do hereby 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.
The courts have ruled time and again that the maintaining of good order and discipline in the armed forces overrides any Constitutional argument of free speech. Anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes in the .mil understands that "support and defend" does not mean "you have the freedoms guaranteed by it". This is the key "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
I ammended your oath to be correct in the way I took it, just for clarity. As any student of language can attest to, placing the 'obeying orders and ucmj' at the end after the 'and' relegates it to a place of LESSER importance than the first two oaths, to the constitution. Ergo, your duty as a soldier/sailor is to the constitution first, and providing the later addendums don't conflict with those first duties, then to obey the president and etc. You can NOT refute the fact of this in our language, the only thing you can do is argue that that's not what they mean now adays when it's said. Well tough crap. Smarter people than us wrote the damn thing and I intend to follow THEIR interpretation, not current yahoos. IF the president or officers above me act in the manner of an enemy of the CONSTITUTION, not the current administration open interpretation thereof but the actual document as intended by the fathers, then all military personal have a sworn duty (many swore to god himself) to find some manner to defend it.
You don't have to call the president a fruit loop to defend the constitution, in fact, you're adding to the harm by removing a true patriot from the ranks of her defenders if you do. No, you develop clear and articulate arguments against the current course of action and provide an alternative more effective and constitutional friendly method, and you remain open to revising and modifying that suggestion based on the input of others. THAT's how you defend the constitution without violence. Then you stand by your decision, be honorable, true and just, and take whatever comes from your actions. Should a point ever be reached where we face the absolute abolishment of original constitutional intent, then there may well be no alternative but to take up arms and declare the current government/administration non-functional and replace it through any means necessary with one that serves the intent, and not the self. At this point, that is also the action of a patriot and oath taker. Those who side against will always name this traitorous, and those who side for will name them patriots. That was the way when we first formed this nation, that will likely be the way again. It's just the way it is.
No one suggests you're still protected by the bill of rights when you enlist, but you're duty bound by the oath you took, and you should never ever, regardless of consequences, shirk that duty. You just have to be willing to accept the penalties for being a good person in our current world, which are generally swift and harsh.
But the key to all this, is that defense of the CONSTITUTION, and nothing else, is the primary duty of all military members...as established by our founding fathers.