Remember Veterans- We're Trained to Disobey Unlawful Orders

[NYcarbineer]

too funny. another day in the nuthouse begins.

"the nuthouse", the place where you have been a permanent resident?? ....

I'm a volunteer caregiver.

 

[Wildman]

too funny. another day in the nuthouse begins.

"the nuthouse", the place where you have been a permanent resident?? ....

I'm a volunteer caregiver.

yaa, right ! like i am the top candidate for president.

 

[J.E.D]

too funny. another day in the nuthouse begins.

"the nuthouse", the place where you have been a permanent resident?? ....

I'm a volunteer caregiver.

yaa, right ! like i am the top candidate for president.

You probably are....in your head....or in your trailer park

 

[whitehall]

It might be in the UCMJ somewhere but i'm a Veteran and I don't remember "being trained" to interpret or disobey orders.

 

[pinqy]

An executive order that is unconstitutional IS NOT a lawful order.

This is true. However, it would have to be blatently clear, as in your Dominionist example. I see nothing in Obama's EO on guns that is unquestionabley unconstitutional. That I don't agree with it, and think that it does go against the Constitution, doesn't mean I'm right.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And the head shed just gave us every reason to show our resolve. We were trained to disobey unlawful orders on the spot. Not waiting for the courts to decide. Obama's tyranny episode yesterday is just the beginning.

Carry on as we do, and let's not let the communist in the White House do to us what we served to avoid

-Geaux

We were also trained that orders are presumed to be lawful if there is a miltary purpose and specific mandate. Violating one's conscience or a personal belief is not sufficient.

If a Commenader-in-Chief were to give an order , or set precedence that is outside the boundaries of his position as dictated under the Constitution, then there is no authority to which it can be upheld or obeyed. We have a system of government that's been established by our Founders, with very clear bounderies established with regard to the reach and limited authority given to each branch of government. These checks and balances is what keeps this nation from becoming a dictatorship. To use executive order as a means to bypass Congress in order to establish new precedence, is to show a complete disrespect of the oath the President has sworn to uphold above all else when he took office. In comparison to that oath.... his opinions of Congress, personal views, ideological beliefs, and frustrations over our system of government is COMPLETELY irrelevant and holds absolutely no authoratative constitutional grounds or basis by which it can be upheld.

 

[FA_Q2]

It might be in the UCMJ somewhere but i'm a Veteran and I don't remember "being trained" to interpret or disobey orders.

Did you miss all those training sessions on LOAC?

You should have been stressed CONTINUALLY about how you are required to disobey unlawful orders.

 

[FA_Q2]

And the head shed just gave us every reason to show our resolve. We were trained to disobey unlawful orders on the spot. Not waiting for the courts to decide. Obama's tyranny episode yesterday is just the beginning.

Carry on as we do, and let's not let the communist in the White House do to us what we served to avoid

-Geaux

And executive order is a lawful order, dipshit. Get back to the docks and wait on the sailors to come in, and do something that you're good at.

An executive order that is unconstitutional IS NOT a lawful order.

For instance, let's say that dominionist gets elected, and he signs an executive order making Christianity the national religion.

Then he follows that EO with another one that will round up all the Jews, Muslims, Catholics, LDS, and any other person he feels doesn't subscribes to his view of Christianity, and have them labeled and marked as possible enemies to the state, requiring them to wear badges and post signs on their homes.

Would those EO's be "lawful" just b/c the people love President Cruz?

An executive order is constitutional until it has been successfully challenged in court.

And how do you think that process starts?

Someone ignores it.

 

[pinqy]

And the head shed just gave us every reason to show our resolve. We were trained to disobey unlawful orders on the spot. Not waiting for the courts to decide. Obama's tyranny episode yesterday is just the beginning.

Carry on as we do, and let's not let the communist in the White House do to us what we served to avoid

-Geaux

We were also trained that orders are presumed to be lawful if there is a miltary purpose and specific mandate. Violating one's conscience or a personal belief is not sufficient.

If a Commenader-in-Chief were to give an order , or set precedence that is outside the boundaries of his position as dictated under the Constitution, then there is no authority to which it can be upheld or obeyed. We have a system of government that's been established by our Founders, with very clear bounderies established with regard to the reach and limited authority given to each branch of government. These checks and balances is what keeps this nation from becoming a dictatorship. To use executive order as a means to bypass Congress in order to establish new precedence, is to show a complete disrespect of the oath the President has sworn to uphold above all else when he took office. In comparison to that oath.... his opinions of Congress, personal views, ideological beliefs, and frustrations over our system of government is COMPLETELY irrelevant and holds absolutely no authoratative constitutional grounds or basis by which it can be upheld.

True. But it would have to be clear and unequivocal that that was what he or she was doing. Specialist Michael New believed that President Clinton's orders were outside his authority and unconstitutional and New is still in prison because of that.

 

[bodecea]

too funny. another day in the nuthouse begins.

"the nuthouse", the place where you have been a permanent resident?? ....

I'm a volunteer caregiver.

yaa, right ! like i am the top candidate for president.

You probably think you are.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And the head shed just gave us every reason to show our resolve. We were trained to disobey unlawful orders on the spot. Not waiting for the courts to decide. Obama's tyranny episode yesterday is just the beginning.

Carry on as we do, and let's not let the communist in the White House do to us what we served to avoid

-Geaux

We were also trained that orders are presumed to be lawful if there is a miltary purpose and specific mandate. Violating one's conscience or a personal belief is not sufficient.

If a Commenader-in-Chief were to give an order , or set precedence that is outside the boundaries of his position as dictated under the Constitution, then there is no authority to which it can be upheld or obeyed. We have a system of government that's been established by our Founders, with very clear bounderies established with regard to the reach and limited authority given to each branch of government. These checks and balances is what keeps this nation from becoming a dictatorship. To use executive order as a means to bypass Congress in order to establish new precedence, is to show a complete disrespect of the oath the President has sworn to uphold above all else when he took office. In comparison to that oath.... his opinions of Congress, personal views, ideological beliefs, and frustrations over our system of government is COMPLETELY irrelevant and holds absolutely no authoratative constitutional grounds or basis by which it can be upheld.

True. But it would have to be clear and unequivocal that that was what he or she was doing. Specialist Michael New believed that President Clinton's orders were outside his authority and unconstitutional and New is still in prison because of that.

The problem with executive orders. When Presidents use their position to try and push the boundaries beyond that which was allowed them to have Constitutionally, while using their predecessor or other excuse to justify those actions, it undermines the credibility of their office while eroding the checks and balances the Founders had originally intended. When we allow one branch, office, or position to dictate the roles or authority given to another, we allocate a power to them that alleviates all accountability of that office or position. If the current president is not held accountable to those actions or decisions, what will it mean for our nation when the next individual to hold that position builds on that expansion of power to grant himself even greater reach and authority?

 

[Syriusly]

And the head shed just gave us every reason to show our resolve. We were trained to disobey unlawful orders on the spot. Not waiting for the courts to decide. Obama's tyranny episode yesterday is just the beginning.

Carry on as we do, and let's not let the communist in the White House do to us what we served to avoid

-Geaux

I look forward to reading about how you bravely refuse to do a background check the next time your sell 20 guns to someone.

 

[g5000]

I'm a retired vet. And all I have to say to the rubes in this topic who think they should "disobey an unlawful order" is this: You are too fucking stupid to know what is unlawful. So...best of luck to you, idiots! Buh-bye!

 

[Kondor3]

And the head shed just gave us every reason to show our resolve. We were trained to disobey unlawful orders on the spot. Not waiting for the courts to decide. Obama's tyranny episode yesterday is just the beginning.

Carry on as we do, and let's not let the communist in the White House do to us what we served to avoid

-Geaux

No need.... he'll be gone in another 12 months, and he can be stalled enough between now and then to avoid any unpleasantness.

 

[regent]

Perhaps each military person should be given a book of lawful military orders and when the order should be obeyed, or not obeyed. And just as important each military person should be given time to check in their book each time an order is given to make sure it is lawful order in the circumstances? A question might come up though in a different interpretation of the order and there is some confusion, should they then take a vote on the legality of the order or have one of the military well versed in the topic decide on the legality? Another method might be the unit could call some office and explain the circumstances and let them decide, lawful or not. But suppose the....

 

[konradv]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

So if they don't refuse to obey, the order is lawful? Are you saying the military is the new USSC? Sounds like Rome, where the troops decided who the new emperor was.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm a retired vet. And all I have to say to the rubes in this topic who think they should "disobey an unlawful order" is this: You are too fucking stupid to know what is unlawful. So...best of luck to you, idiots! Buh-bye!

Then you should know the President's oath is to uphold the Constitution. His political views, frustrations over Congress and our system of government, what he would "like" to see happen, and ideological opinions all are totally and completely irrelevant in comparison. Perhaps you need to pay attention a little more on Inauguration Day.

 

[g5000]

I'm a retired vet. And all I have to say to the rubes in this topic who think they should "disobey an unlawful order" is this: You are too fucking stupid to know what is unlawful. So...best of luck to you, idiots! Buh-bye!

Then you should know the President's oath is to uphold the Constitution. His political views, frustrations over Congress and our system of government, what he would "like" to see happen, and ideological opinions all are totally and completely irrelevant in comparison. Perhaps you need to pay attention a little closer on Inauguration Day.

You should pay attention to the fact you keep getting lied to, and ask yourself why you get back in line for refills of your piss cup from the same propaganda outlet which has lied to you countless times.

 

[Timmy]

What u lawful order ? Background check laws have nothing to do wh the military .

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm a retired vet. And all I have to say to the rubes in this topic who think they should "disobey an unlawful order" is this: You are too fucking stupid to know what is unlawful. So...best of luck to you, idiots! Buh-bye!

Then you should know the President's oath is to uphold the Constitution. His political views, frustrations over Congress and our system of government, what he would "like" to see happen, and ideological opinions all are totally and completely irrelevant in comparison. Perhaps you need to pay attention a little closer on Inauguration Day.

You should pay attention to the fact you keep getting lied to, and ask yourself why you get back in line for refills of your piss cup from the same propaganda outlet which has lied to you countless times.

So now g5000 is equating the oath of office to propaganda. Way to go genius.