View Full Version : For active and veteran military, a site:
Andrew
08-09-2009, 04:02 AM
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
The group is formed to advance our having sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and obey only those orders that are so based.
It is for both the military and the police.
Zoombie
08-09-2009, 04:19 AM
That seems like a good website.
Course, I'm neither military police...
Andrew
08-09-2009, 04:20 AM
I think it is--it may become an important issue for many of us.
ColoradoGuy
08-09-2009, 04:56 AM
As with many things, the devil will be in the details -- that is, one's interpretation of what the Constitution means.
nighttimer
08-09-2009, 06:35 AM
When anyone enlists in the armed forces they take the following oath:
In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
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.
I don't see anything in that oath that would give me the latitude to decide which orders of the President of the United States or officers appointed over me I can choose to obey or disobey.
Who are the Oath Keepers to suggest their oath should supercede the one I took when I entered the military?
The responsibility of a soldier to obey the oath they take goes beyond any private group and their private political agenda.
For an active duty solider it could also get them into serious trouble with the UCMJ.
When anyone enlists in the armed forces they take the following oath:
In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
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.
You are incorrect. National Guard (Army and Air) takes the very same oath.
nighttimer
08-09-2009, 07:21 AM
You are incorrect. National Guard (Army and Air) takes the very same oath.
Really? I was under the impression there was a slight difference.
In the National Guard (Army or Air) I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) 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 Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God
When I asked my SO, who served both Army and Air Force National Guard, to recite the oath, he recited the first with no changes. Thanks.
blacbird
08-09-2009, 07:59 AM
As with many things, the devil will be in the details -- that is, one's interpretation of what the Constitution means.
Communist.
caw
Romantic Heretic
08-09-2009, 08:18 AM
Interesting. Double patriotism isn't just a Japanese concept.
blacbird
08-09-2009, 08:43 AM
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.
Worth noting is that it is exactly an explicit violation of this oath that got "uber-patriot" General Douglas MacArthur fired by President Harry Truman.
caw
Andrew
08-09-2009, 01:53 PM
It is mostly an aim to be consistent should the situation arise that we are given orders to move on an operation of the American people who are not domestic terrorists.
nighttimer
08-09-2009, 03:25 PM
Who makes the decision as to whom is a domestic terrorist? The President, the officers or the individual soldier?
When anyone enlists in the armed forces they take the following oath:
In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
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.
I don't see anything in that oath that would give me the latitude to decide which orders of the President of the United States or officers appointed over me I can choose to obey or disobey.
Who are the Oath Keepers to suggest their oath should supercede the one I took when I entered the military?
The responsibility of a soldier to obey the oath they take goes beyond any private group and their private political agenda.
For an active duty solider it could also get them into serious trouble with the UCMJ.
I don’t know which branch of the service you were in, but we were periodically required to attend training in the Laws of Armed Conflict. In that training, it was made very clear that each individual ultimately makes the decision whom they will obey, and which orders they will or will not obey. The individual must decide which orders are legal or illegal. That was the precedent established in the Nuremberg trials, and was the basis for the training I received in my 24-years of service.
The Oath Keepers clearly specify which orders they will not obey because they believe them to be unconstitutional. It does not supersede any oath, but does clarify specific orders and government actions deemed to be unconstitutional in the opinion of the members.
The only political agenda I find on the website is the desire to understand and follow the Constitution.
Dommo
08-09-2009, 06:51 PM
The problem, is that to make an oath to follow the constitution everyone needs to be trained in constitutional law. Perhaps if everyone had 2 years of law school under them, then they'd be able to actually swear fealty to the constitution, because they'd have a real understanding of it.
Otherwise I think obeying your superiors is probably the better option. It's similar to why I obey my doctor when he prescribes me something, it's because I'm trusting in his understanding of his profession. Just like in the military I'd be trusting in the leadership at the upper levels to make sure that I am obeying the constitution.
Andrew
08-09-2009, 10:36 PM
Who makes the decision as to whom is a domestic terrorist? The President, the officers or the individual soldier?
In my view only leftists are confused about what the Constitution provides.
Individual soldiers/Marines know it would be wrong to fire on say--Americans.
Kurtz
08-09-2009, 11:10 PM
In my view only leftists are confused about what the Constitution provides.
Individual soldiers/Marines know it would be wrong to fire on say--Americans.
Didn't you people fight a civil war a few years ago?
The problem, is that to make an oath to follow the constitution everyone needs to be trained in constitutional law. Perhaps if everyone had 2 years of law school under them, then they'd be able to actually swear fealty to the constitution, because they'd have a real understanding of it.
That's the last thing you need! If we had half the number of lawyers licensed to practice today, we'd have half the problems.
Kurtz
08-10-2009, 12:05 AM
Because why should young men understand the document they are going to give their lives for?
Romantic Heretic
08-10-2009, 12:15 AM
In my view only leftists are confused about what the Constitution provides.
Individual soldiers/Marines know it would be wrong to fire on say--Americans.
So, if a soldier or policeman had the opportunity to fire on Timothy McVeigh before he set his bomb and knowing Mceigh was going to set the bomb he or she should not fire? Because McVeigh was American?
I went through the oathbreakers, I mean oathkeepers site, and as I said, "Double patriotism." Like the Japanese military before WWII these people are answering a 'higher calling'. Or so they say.
In actuality they are giving themselves an excuse to disobey orders. Perhaps they are even planning to interfere with the politics of America in the same manner that the Japanese military did.
They are really saying, "I do not think the current administration in the White House is legitimate. Therefore I don't have to follow any of their orders. I've taken a higher oath that supersedes the oath I took to the United States. I don't have to keep my word to my country if I don't want to."
That's cool. You're allowed. I just wish you were honest about your motivations. This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with your political stance.
nighttimer
08-10-2009, 01:55 AM
In my view only leftists are confused about what the Constitution provides.
Individual soldiers/Marines know it would be wrong to fire on say--Americans.
Even if those, say--Americans, are engaged in activities that threaten the security of other Americans? That's a pretty big loophole you're made for yourself there, Andrew.
I wonder...does that opt-out clause include Americans named Ahmad Muhammad as well as John Smith? Can I fire on certain groups of Americans but not others? Are Christians okay and Muslims not? Who defines who is and who isn't an American a soldier can open fire on?
Why do Marines possess a special insight into their Constitutional responsibilities that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard or reservists do not?
In your view only "leftists" are confused about what the Constitution provides? Does that means if an enemy force invades the homeland storming across the Golden Gate Bridge into a liberal enclave like San Francisco those unlucky bastards can just go hang?
What exactly of 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, are you unclear on, Andrew?
If I'm a member of the Crips or the Aryan Nations and I enlist in the armed forces, who ultimately commands my allegiance? My country or my gang? What if I'm part of a religious sect that advocates I can attack this group of non-believers, but not that group of believers.
There's a reason why the oath a member of the armed forces takes precedence over all other oaths, including right-wing groups that seek to undermine the authority of the President of the United States.
Sounds like sedition cleaned up and wrapped in the flag and Constitution, but sedition all the same.
Williebee
08-10-2009, 01:59 AM
In my view only leftists are confused about what the Constitution provides.
Really? Only "leftists"? What's a "leftist", in your view? (Just trying to see how big a brush you're using here. See how big a drop cloth we're gonna need.)
Andrew
08-10-2009, 03:25 AM
The leftists who defacate (literally) on the flag is who I had in mind--and carry signs that say, "I support our troops when they kill their officers." They have a right to do these things but cannot demand that I respect them. And whatever version of the Consititution they believe in is not, well, the U.S. Constitution. I rather think it may have been penned by Lenin or Marx.
ColoradoGuy
08-10-2009, 03:28 AM
He's the President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Deal with it.
Andrew
08-10-2009, 03:30 AM
So, if a soldier or policeman had the opportunity to fire on Timothy McVeigh before he set his bomb and knowing Mceigh was going to set the bomb he or she should not fire? Because McVeigh was American?
I went through the oathbreakers, I mean oathkeepers site, and as I said, "Double patriotism." Like the Japanese military before WWII these people are answering a 'higher calling'. Or so they say.
In actuality they are giving themselves an excuse to disobey orders. Perhaps they are even planning to interfere with the politics of America in the same manner that the Japanese military did.
They are really saying, "I do not think the current administration in the White House is legitimate. Therefore I don't have to follow any of their orders. I've taken a higher oath that supersedes the oath I took to the United States. I don't have to keep my word to my country if I don't want to."
That's cool. You're allowed. I just wish you were honest about your motivations. This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with your political stance.
That is oathkeepers.
Williebee
08-10-2009, 04:04 AM
The leftists who defacate (literally) on the flag is who I had in mind--and carry signs that say, "I support our troops when they kill their officers." They have a right to do these things but cannot demand that I respect them. And whatever version of the Consititution they believe in is not, well, the U.S. Constitution. I rather think it may have been penned by Lenin or Marx.
So, please bring us some references/cites/links of somebody who defecated on the flag, or carried this sign and then demanded that you respect them.
Meanwhile, please, go get a smaller brush.
I don’t quite understand the vehemence displayed against the Oath Keepers. They are stated non-partisan and their only stance is to support and defend constitutional government. They make no threats, and they do not advocate any form of violence. When any member even hints that they would condone violence, they are immediately chastised and reminded that the organization’s mission is to inform and educate.
Unlike seditionists, which they have been called on this thread, they have no wish to overthrow the Constitution of the United States, nor any of the laws derived from that document. I see them as a watchdog group, similar to the ACLU, but made up of citizens who have pledged an oath to defend the Constitution as written by the Founders, instead of a gaggle of lawyers pledged to spin and modify that document to suit their politics.
If all elected politicians, and appointees of an administration, perform their duties in accordance with the Constitution, the Oath Keepers will have about the same effect on them as the VFW or the American Legion.
Andrew
08-10-2009, 04:11 AM
So, please bring us some references/cites/links of somebody who defecated on the flag, or carried this sign and then demanded that you respect them.
Meanwhile, please, go get a smaller brush.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/ShootOfficers3.gif
Andrew
08-10-2009, 04:12 AM
http://www.portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=117459283544877600
Andrew
08-10-2009, 04:13 AM
No, I would not shoot them.
Williebee
08-10-2009, 04:23 AM
The leftists who defacate (literally) on the flag is who I had in mind--and carry signs that say, "I support our troops when they kill their officers." They have a right to do these things but cannot demand that I respect them.
In my view only leftists are confused about what the Constitution provides.
Ok, so you're saying that these folks (who are asshats, IMO btw) are leftists and that they demanded your respect, and are confused by what the Constitution provides?
Like, freedom of speech? Freedom to be an asshat (IMO)?
And, what should we believe Oathkeepers would have done with them?
And what of the folks who took the same oath, and swore to country, but not the Christian God?
Andrew
08-10-2009, 04:36 AM
I don't know why some here seem to be so very antagonistic but it is what it is--do you really think these people respect our founding document? I simply know them as haters... met a few along the way.
That's the only point I tried to make.
nighttimer
08-10-2009, 06:17 AM
I don’t quite understand the vehemence displayed against the Oath Keepers. They are stated non-partisan and their only stance is to support and defend constitutional government. They make no threats, and they do not advocate any form of violence. When any member even hints that they would condone violence, they are immediately chastised and reminded that the organization’s mission is to inform and educate.
Unlike seditionists, which they have been called on this thread, they have no wish to overthrow the Constitution of the United States, nor any of the laws derived from that document. I see them as a watchdog group, similar to the ACLU, but made up of citizens who have pledged an oath to defend the Constitution as written by the Founders, instead of a gaggle of lawyers pledged to spin and modify that document to suit their politics.
If all elected politicians, and appointees of an administration, perform their duties in accordance with the Constitution, the Oath Keepers will have about the same effect on them as the VFW or the American Legion.
That all sounds very innocuous and high-minded, but this group isn't quite as apolitical as you suggest. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of OathKeepers, worked in Congressman Ron Paul's office. Listen to some of his rhetoric on YouTube and on whack job programs like the one professional conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones hosts and you hear the same old pro-gun, resist the New World Order, grab-yer-guns-and-start-a-private-militia paranoia that's been peddled for years.
I don't like linking to blogs as they are notoriously unreliable, but here is an excerpt from one quoting a OathKeeper who gave a speech at the April 15 tea parties:
Oath Keepers is an organization founded by former Army paratrooper and Yale-educated attorney, Stewart Rhodes. Its membership is comprised of active duty service members, veterans, law enforcement personnel, and fire-fighters who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, who will not just follow orders, who will stand for liberty, and who will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is: “Not on our watch!”
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan organization. Its purpose is to remind those of us who have taken the oath of our duty to the Constitution. Our oath wasn’t to an officer in the ranks above us, or to a politician, or even to a president. It was to the Constitution. This means that not only will we obey lawful constitutional orders but that we MUST refuse unlawful, unconstitutional orders. This is not only our right it is the law, it is our DUTY, and the essence of the oath we took. For if we follow an unlawful, unconstitutional order, how can we possibly be supporting and defending the Constitution?
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=2363
One of the OathKeepers is the former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, Richard Mack. Mack has some interesting theories on whom should be dispensing law and order.
Mack, the former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., believes the strongest defense against the Constitutional violations he sees the federal government committing is the county sheriff. It’s a philosophy he expounds upon in his 49-page book, “The County Sheriff, America’s Last Best Hope,” where he advises county sheriffs to reassert the significant power granted them by their office, and to resist encroachments upon individual freedoms by the “vultures and corrupt officials” in the federal government.
“The sheriff is the ultimate authority in the county,” Mack said. “We’re going to expect top law enforcement officials to uphold the Constitution.”
link (http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/patriotic_or_problematic/11733/)
Anti-government rhetoric and paranoia is as old as the nation itself and OathKeepers is just another version of the same old song and dance.
I don't know why some here seem to be so very antagonistic but it is what it is--do you really think these people respect our founding document? I simply know them as haters... met a few along the way.
Far-left radicals and anarchists who defecate on the flag are no more frightening to me than far-right radicals and anarchists who wrap themselves in the flag.
Both have the Constitutional right to engage in free expression of their ideas even when I find those ideas daffy, disgusting or difficult to believe.
I draw the line at those who would undermine the integrity of the armed forces and law enforcement and subvert them to their cause under the guise of defending the Constitution. Their right to free expression ends when it comes in the form of thinly-veiled calls for armed insurrection and violence.
Both extremes are haters and what they hate is a government they fear is going to swoop down in black helecopters and round them up into camps. There's a fine line between legitimate concerns about the growth of government, intrusions and violations of privacy and the concentration of too much power in too few hands and outright anti-government paranoia.
Oath Keepers has crossed that line.
POPASMOKE
08-10-2009, 07:52 AM
...and what they hate is a government they fear is going to swoop down in black helecopters and round them up into camps. There's a fine line between legitimate concerns about the growth of government, intrusions and violations of privacy and the concentration of too much power in too few hands and outright anti-government paranoia.
Have to agree with you on this.
This is a new take on an old theme, that being groups resurrecting the specter of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1876 that forbids the federal government from using federal troops for law enforcement functions within the states to include state's national guards when they've been federalized. Quite frankly, some of the comments on the website were over the top. FEMA camps, etc.
I'll reserve my final judgement for awhile, but this isn't a group I'd feel comfortable with. In spite of all our problems in this country, I have faith in our democracy.
SPMiller
08-10-2009, 11:43 AM
Unlike seditionists, which they have been called on this thread, they have no wish to overthrow the Constitution of the United States, nor any of the laws derived from that document. I see them as a watchdog group, similar to the ACLU, but made up of citizens who have pledged an oath to defend the Constitution as written by the Founders, instead of a gaggle of lawyers pledged to spin and modify that document to suit their politics.
I see them as a watchdog group, similar to the ACLU, but made up of citizens who have pledged an oath to defend the Constitution as written by the Founders, instead of a gaggle of lawyers pledged to spin and modify that document to suit their politics.
the Constitution as written by the Founders, instead of a gaggle of lawyersAnd now we see through to the ideological core of the matter.
The founders that such people idolize designed the constitution to be a living, changing document. The correct position would be to defend the constitution as it exists today, and that's what the founders intended.
The founders that such people idolize designed the constitution to be a living, changing document. The correct position would be to defend the constitution as it exists today, and that's what the founders intended.
Some think it's the correct position, while others don't, and that's the debate.
Constitutional changes were expected and provided for with the amendment process. Feel-good legislation from the bench is not constitutional, no matter from which side it emanates.
ColoradoGuy
08-11-2009, 04:58 AM
A bit more context. (http://jaghunters.blogspot.com/2009/03/tuesday-17-march-2009-to-mr.html)
Romantic Heretic
08-11-2009, 05:10 AM
Yep, just what I thought.
This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the fact that these people can't stand the thought of a non-white liberal in The White House.
By extension they are saying that the American people are too stupid to vote 'properly'.
The only "contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit" I've seen so far is that 'birther contoversy'. Which is a load of crap.
Well these people are allowed to think that. I just wish they be honest about their motives.
I find that people who wish to declare the Constitution a "living document" do so in the hope they can administer end-of-life treatment. :ROFL:
Yep, just what I thought.
This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the fact that these people can't stand the thought of a non-white liberal in The White House.
By extension they are saying that the American people are too stupid to vote 'properly'.
The only "contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit" I've seen so far is that 'birther contoversy'. Which is a load of crap.
Well these people are allowed to think that. I just wish they be honest about their motives.
I don't see that the link has anything to do with Oath Keepers.
While you're at it, cut the school yard race-baiting crap. It gets old.
ColoradoGuy
08-11-2009, 06:15 AM
I know it's only my opinion, and I'm biased (as are we all) by my political views, but I see that site as a more extreme face of the same worldview.
Zoombie
08-11-2009, 06:28 AM
I find that people who wish to declare the Constitution a "living document" do so in the hope they can administer end-of-life treatment. :ROFL:
Eh?
Even you have to admit that if the Constitution was not a Living Document, black people would still be only 2/3rds of a person, slavery would be legal, and only landowners could vote.
I know it's only my opinion, and I'm biased (as are we all) by my political views, but I see that site as a more extreme face of the same worldview.
A desire to assure that the Constitution is followed by our leaders is not a worldview...it's an American view. What the world does is none of my business, but what our leaders do directly affects my life, so I will keep doing what I can to make sure they don't stray from the law of the land.
That is the same desire I see in the Oath Keepers, and until they prove otherwise, I will defend the organization from the expected smears.
Williebee
08-11-2009, 08:21 AM
A desire to assure that the Constitution is followed by our leaders is not a worldview...it's an American view. What the world does is none of my business, but what our leaders do directly affects my life, so I will keep doing what I can to make sure they don't stray from the law of the land.
That is the same desire I see in the Oath Keepers, and until they prove otherwise, I will defend the organization from the expected smears.
True enough, perhaps. But do you not see that point of view as part of a larger world view? Frankly, the interaction of people and governments on the planet are too quick, too easy, and too readily available, for any real hope of isolation.
ColoradoGuy
08-11-2009, 08:35 AM
A desire to assure that the Constitution is followed by our leaders is not a worldview...it's an American view.
I used the term in its broader philosophical sense, often termed one's Weltanshauung (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Weltanschauung).
nighttimer
08-11-2009, 09:35 AM
A desire to assure that the Constitution is followed by our leaders is not a worldview...it's an American view. What the world does is none of my business, but what our leaders do directly affects my life, so I will keep doing what I can to make sure they don't stray from the law of the land.
That is the same desire I see in the Oath Keepers, and until they prove otherwise, I will defend the organization from the expected smears.
And what an excellent job you're doing so far. I particularly enjoyed your three word retort to my previous post.
Very economical. :Thumbs:
blacbird
08-11-2009, 10:01 AM
What the world does is none of my business,
Here you are about as wrong as it is possible to be, and it is greatly against your own best interests to think this way. It don't matter sloth drool in an Amazon rainstorm that you'd like it to be different, it isn't, hasn't been for a century, and never will be again. Even the Amish can't really operate under this concept anymore.
caw
Zoombie
08-11-2009, 10:18 AM
Yeah, you're not going to be able to get away from it all till we get some kind of faster than light drive...or just become immortal and decide to take the long way to the stars.
Andrew
08-11-2009, 02:13 PM
A desire to assure that the Constitution is followed by our leaders is not a worldview...it's an American view. What the world does is none of my business, but what our leaders do directly affects my life, so I will keep doing what I can to make sure they don't stray from the law of the land.
That is the same desire I see in the Oath Keepers, and until they prove otherwise, I will defend the organization from the expected smears.
The reaction of some is predictable and not worth a full minute of time--the only reason for posting the link was for other vets to look into it and if they decide to sign up, they'll find a friendly atmosphere.
FWIW: Current novel in work: Riser 2014 by Hunter Ayers. Goes to the issues.
Eh?
Even you have to admit that if the Constitution was not a Living Document, black people would still be only 2/3rds of a person, slavery would be legal, and only landowners could vote.
Those changes have been handled appropriately, through the amendment process, not by nine old farts in black robes deciding they didn't care for the original words, so they would make up new meanings.
I used the term in its broader philosophical sense, often termed one's Weltanshauung (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Weltanschauung).
And I was referring to law and reality, not philosophy.
True enough, perhaps. But do you not see that point of view as part of a larger world view? Frankly, the interaction of people and governments on the planet are too quick, too easy, and too readily available, for any real hope of isolation.
No, I don't.
I have no obligation to anyone to modify or discard my principles, simply to please their wants...or their worldview. The world has far too many busybodies with good intentions and I choose not to be one of them.
Here you are about as wrong as it is possible to be, and it is greatly against your own best interests to think this way. It don't matter sloth drool in an Amazon rainstorm that you'd like it to be different, it isn't, hasn't been for a century, and never will be again. Even the Amish can't really operate under this concept anymore.
caw
I will treat other nations the same way I treat the guy who runs the hardware store down the street. I'll smile and greet him when we meet. I'll buy from his store and pay him what is due. I'll join him in a game of softball. I'll help him if his home burns. I'll even buy him lunch if he's had a string of bad luck, but I'm sure as hell not going to tell him how to run his hardware store, or how to raise his kids. Nor am I going to let him steal my wages to sit on his butt and tell me how I should live.
There is a difference between dog-in-the-manger isolationism and a desire to butt out of what is none of our business.
Sweetlebee
08-11-2009, 05:44 PM
The reaction of some is predictable and not worth a full minute of time--the only reason for posting the link was for other vets to look into it and if they decide to sign up, they'll find a friendly atmosphere.
FWIW: Current novel in work: Riser 2014 by Hunter Ayers. Goes to the issues.
It was obvious that that was your intent, but since when do we get to start threads about our pet causes in order to recruit other Awers, and then get all righteous when people want to give a different opinion of what you want to hear? I thought this was a political discussion forum, not a vehicle for free advertising of a website.
Btw, I've looked at their forum (the link is somewhat hidden near the bottom of the page) and the discussions there tell me all I need to know about the mindset of the members. I can't imagine any of the former military in my family being interested in joining you.
Romantic Heretic
08-11-2009, 08:15 PM
I find that people who wish to declare the Constitution a "living document" do so in the hope they can administer end-of-life treatment. :ROFL:
Well, if it's not a living document it's a dead one.
And dead things tend to rot.
Well, if it's not a living document it's a dead one.
And dead things tend to rot.
A new approach to animism? Srsly?
Documents don't live or die. They are written, exist, and may be destroyed, of course, but there's no heartbeat, or soul -- or life reborn through interpretation.
Next let's discuss whether dogs go to heaven. :rolleyes:
ColoradoGuy
08-11-2009, 08:38 PM
Documents don't live or die. They are written, exist, and may be destroyed, of course, but there's no heartbeat, or soul -- or life reborn through interpretation.
Now you've done it -- you'll have the wrath of all of literary criticism down on your head. Prepare to be pelted by scholarly monographs and phi beta kappa keys.
Kurtz
08-11-2009, 09:34 PM
Documents don't live or die. They are written, exist, and may be destroyed, of course, but there's no heartbeat, or soul -- or life reborn through interpretation.
The Bible.
The Bible.
Is the argument that the Constitution should be viewed as divinely inspired and interpreted by the nine Supreme Priests? Or that the Constitution is an interesting piece of literature that has no relevance to today?
The First Amendment takes care of the first argument, and the fact that the Constitution is still the highest law of the land and has not been superceded takes care of the second.
Now you've done it -- you'll have the wrath of all of literary criticism down on your head. Prepare to be pelted by scholarly monographs and phi beta kappa keys.
So we're judging the Constitution as literature, instead of as a legal document?
Kurtz
08-11-2009, 10:04 PM
The argument is that the claim that interpretations of documents do not change over time is laughable, proven by the example of The Bible. It is a living document because Richard Coeur de Leon and CS Lewis read the same text and got vastly different meanings from it.
ColoradoGuy
08-11-2009, 10:12 PM
So we're judging the Constitution as literature, instead of as a legal document?
It's both.
Williebee
08-11-2009, 10:50 PM
Next let's discuss whether dogs go to heaven.
Don- stay away from my dogs.
:)
Kurtz
08-11-2009, 11:08 PM
I know a lot of dogs that deserve to go to heaven, and a lot of people who don't.
<<<<<<< This is not one of those dogs.
nighttimer
08-11-2009, 11:23 PM
The reaction of some is predictable and not worth a full minute of time--the only reason for posting the link was for other vets to look into it and if they decide to sign up, they'll find a friendly atmosphere.
It was obvious that that was your intent, but since when do we get to start threads about our pet causes in order to recruit other Awers, and then get all righteous when people want to give a different opinion of what you want to hear? I thought this was a political discussion forum, not a vehicle for free advertising of a website.
Btw, I've looked at their forum (the link is somewhat hidden near the bottom of the page) and the discussions there tell me all I need to know about the mindset of the members. I can't imagine any of the former military in my family being interested in joining you.
Seconded. Here's one veteran who doesn't find Andrew's link "a friendly atmosphere."
It is also supremely arrogant to use this forum as a recruiting station for one's favorite causes and organizations and then get indignant when others inquire as to what the reason is.
After all, this is a debate forum, is it not? One might think someone who is so fiercely protective of the Constitution would have a bit more tolerance and respect for the First Amendment.
Believe whatever you want Andrew. Next time though why not just start a blog and remove the ability of readers to comment? That way you'll get your free plug in without any critiques.
SPMiller
08-12-2009, 01:00 AM
Documents don't live or die. They are written, exist, and may be destroyed, of course, but there's no heartbeat, or soul -- or life reborn through interpretation.Human language is a set of symbols we string together to create meaning. The information associated with those symbols changes over time, and some symbols are lost while new ones are created. To say that the meaning of any given text, US constitution or otherwise, is clear from the text itself is laughable. Only by consulting external documents (e.g., the fed. papers) can you even begin to think about what the intent of any part of a text may or may not have been. And those are open to interpretation, too. That's what language is all about.
In other words, you may think you know what the constitution means, but the fact that people exist who disagree with you proves it's not that simple.
SPMiller
08-12-2009, 01:04 AM
But then, I'm a member of the intellectual elite, so it's expected that I'd take that position.
Zoombie
08-12-2009, 03:13 AM
Those changes have been handled appropriately, through the amendment process, not by nine old farts in black robes deciding they didn't care for the original words, so they would make up new meanings.
I could have sworn that is why the Supreme Court *exists*...to give final interpretation to laws.
At least, that's what I believe the original founders of the Constitution intended. Cause they understood that the goverment of THEN was not going to work for the unknown future.
That's why they had the Second Amendment, the Judicial Branch, and the general Amendment processes. So that our Constitution could grow, adapt, and become MORE perfect.
Now, whether or not the Supreme Court's decisions are good or bad is entirely up to debate, but whether they get to make those decisions or not seems pretty clear...to me at least.
A good example of how ye olde law might need refiguring based off modern circumstances would be The Second Amendment. We all agree that the right to have guns was intended by the Founding Fathers...buuuuuuuuuuut how far does that go? Does it extend to pistols and no further? Rifles? Assault Rifles? Rocket Launchers? Those big cannons that fire mini-nukes?
That's the kind of interpretation that the Supreme Court should do.
Kurtz
08-12-2009, 12:23 PM
Plus some parts of the constitution are as vague as hell, because the founders realised that flexibility in some areas were required for continued running of the country.
Prozyan
08-12-2009, 01:09 PM
What the founders intended was a government that mostly stayed the hell out of their lives so they could earn their profits.
But no one likes to remember that.
Zoombie
08-12-2009, 01:41 PM
Actually, when speaking of the Founders, we should always qualify with a specific GROUP of founders. They were a somewhat fragmented bunch, each with their own vision of the new society.
Hence why the original Constitution is crammed with more compromises than ...a....blanket made of...compromise...
Some founders believed in a larger goverment, like the Federalists. Others believed in almost no overreaching goverment, like the Anti-Federalists. Some where Abolitionists. Some were Anti-Abolitionists and so on and so forth.
But, even the most extreme Federalist was more fiscally conservative than most of us.
And there's a good reason for that: No goverment intervention in business combined with the Industrial Revolution resulted in some of the most horrific working conditions *ever*. It got so bad that there were at least 3,600 strikes between 1890 and 1900. And the strikes were broken up using brutal, authoritarian methods. Anyone remember the Pinkertons?
The miserable working conditions of the Gilded Age, in America and the rest of the world, combined to create the idea of socialism and communism. They were direct reactions to one another, just like how Anti-Federalist hatred of goverment intervention came from the British's unfair taxes.
That's what history is like. Action, reaction, reaction, reaction, connecting together in a huge chain of events that ends up with today.
And its up to us to react in the way we want.
I, personally, think we can easily find a middle ground between governmental control and screwing the little guy over.
Cause I'm a political buddhist.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.