Presidential Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Oath of Office of military personnel:
"I, _____, 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.
At what point does the military decide that domestic enemies have infiltrated the highest levels of the United States government for the sole purpose of destroying our Constitution? Once these domestic enemies are identified, what actions should the U.S. military take against these threats? When does the obligation to follow orders of the POTUS become secondary to the fulfillment of their oath?
At this point:
Wall Street Bombing, 1920
Oklahoma City Bombing, 1995
Google "domestic terrorism" for a larger list of domestic enemies
I believe the action they take is trial-and-punishment.
Obama’s a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution
In 1884, Congress, having no set oath of office, wrote its own: “I 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 …”
Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution.
The increasingly desperate Mr. Obama, once a constitutional professor, knows full well he is circumventing Congress. In March 2011 he told a group of young Hispanics: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job.
“Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws,” he said. “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”
The Founders were determined to make sure no American leader ever had the power King George III enjoyed. Which is why they also wrote this in the Constitution: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … /?page=all
There is absolutely no U.S. law giving the president the authority to order the death of any human being without Due Process, there are laws however that make murder illegal. The President's authority is to uphold the law, not to circumvent them at a whim. The president of the United States should at the very least be held responsible for the blatant disregard for the laws of the United States! There is enough reasonable suspicion to bring him to trial for multiple counts of First degree premeditated MURDER!
btw: Murder should be considered a high crime!
under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - HR6166 -
the US military in combat situations may determine through intelligence gathering, the status of enemy combatants. those combatants may then be charged through the military courts as provided by the war act.
the President, as Commander in Chief may take the appropriate action to protect the USA.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ … 6-Bill.pdf
under the Protect America Law, an American can be labeled an enemy combatant based on surveilance obtained under the law.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110pu … publ55.htm
the part in the Constitution about domestic enemies clearly refers to a man's spouse.
I really do not want to be in a nation prone to military coup. The people are meant to demand regime change. The army is not the people.
If the military receives orders to violently deal with the American people, should they follow orders without question? Does the United States military hold allegiance to an individual/s or to the people?
I coup is a change in government. They shouldn't do that.
An order to shoot up the people would be an illegal order; they shouldn't do that either.
There are reasons for the strict limits place on what the army can do.
Anwar al-Awlaki’s family speaks out against his son’s death in airstrike
“To kill a teenager is just unbelievable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense,” said Nasser al-Awlaki, a former Yemeni agriculture minister who was Anwar al-Awlaki’s father and the boy’s grandfather, speaking in a phone interview from Sanaa on Monday. “They want to justify his killing, that’s all.”
The teenager, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver in 1995, and his 17-year-old Yemeni cousin were killed in a U.S. military strike that left nine people dead in southeastern Yemen.
A senior congressional official who is familiar with U.S. operations in Yemen and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive policy issues said, “If they knew a 16-year-old was there, I think that would be cause for them to say: ‘Gee, we ought not to hit this guy. That would be considered collateral damage.’ ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat … story.html
The order given to murder a 17 year old American citizen was an illegal order, yet it was carried out with no questions! There are no claims implicating Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in any wrongdoing. He was murdered and the family is refused any form of Justice!
Appeals court judges seem skeptical of CIA secrecy on drone program
In that declaration, Bennett said that in light of speeches made by senior U.S. officials on the subject of killing al-Qaida leaders, the CIA conducted a search for records responsive to the ACLU’s request in the New York case.
“Based on that search, it has determined that it can now publicly acknowledge that it possesses records responsive to the ACLU’s FOIA request,” he said. But he said the spy agency can’t provide the number, nature or categorization of those records without disclosing information protected under FOIA exemptions.
Delery said that the question of whether the CIA has documents on drones is “not where we’re drawing the line.”
ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said in a telephone interview that the government has “repackaged” the same argument.
“They continue to take the position that they haven’t acknowledged the CIA uses drones to carry out targeted killings,” he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html
How much compassion is used when dropping bombs from unmanned aircraft on civilian populations?
Oh yeah, NATO drops peaceful and compassionate bombs!
I hope and pray that you are correct!
It is stuff such as this that causes me to pause and rethink our predicament:
Will U.S. Troops Fire On American Citizens
The United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force Act of 2001(House Resolution 938) Status of H.R. 938 CosponsorsThe United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force (H.R. 938) was introduced on March 8, 2001 by Representatives James McGovern (D-MA) and Amo Houghton (R-NY) in the House of Representatives.
The legislation calls upon the President to use the United States’ “voice, vote, and influence” to urge the UN:
to establish a United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force (Police and Security Force) that can be quickly dispatched under the authority of the UN Security Council;
to recruit volunteer personnel for the force;
and to provide equitable and reliable funding for the Police and Security Force.
Additionally, the legislation calls upon the President to:
urge UN member nations to enter into regional partnerships for the purpose of forming Rapid Deployment Brigades, made up of on-call units of national forces, capable of deploying within 30 days of a Security Council resolution;
and direct the Secretary of Defense to undertake a study to determine the availability of and feasibility of using U.S. forces as part of the rapid deployment brigades.
What would the Police and Security Force do?
It would: be able to deploy within 15 days of a Security Council resolution to establish international peace operations, with a limited deployment of no more than six months for any given mission;
only be deployed when the Security Council determines that violations of human rights and/or breaches of the peace require a rapid response to ensure adherence to negotiated agreements to prevent or end hostilities;
consist of at least 6,000 volunteers employed directly by the UN, who train together and are appropriately equipped expressly for international peace operations, including civilian policing;
and be given the authority to protect itself, execute negotiated peace accords, disarm combatants, protect civilians, detain war criminals, restore the rule of law, and to carry out other purposes as detailed in Security Council resolutions.
The fact that the United Nations is the unelected yet-to-be Global Government should be warning enough that the United States of America is in great peril. The only intelligent thing to do is… PREPARE.
http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/01/will- … -citizens/
What constitutes a "breach of the peace"? Protests?
ask the folks from Kent State that question.
Normally, under U.S. law, the people would have the ability to have their grievances redressed through the Justice system. Now, all that the government needs is to shout "State Secrets" and the case is dismissed. Through these actions the people have no recourse to have their grievances redressed!
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, has anyone actually got up of the sofa and done this?
The State Secrets Privilege: Selected Case Files
"Use of the state secrets privilege in courts has grown significantly over the last twenty-five years. In the twenty-three years between the decision in Reynolds  and the election of Jimmy Carter, in 1976, there were four reported cases in which the government invoked the privilege. Between 1977 and 2001, there were a total of fifty-one reported cases in which courts ruled on invocation of the privilege. Because reported cases only represent a fraction of the total cases in which the privilege is invoked or implicated, it is unclear precisely how dramatically the use of the privilege has grown. But the increase in reported cases is indicative of greater willingness to assert the privilege than in the past."
"Other than the scarce exception, the privilege is invariably fatal to efforts to gain access to covered documents. It is hardly surprising that such an effective tool would tempt presidents to use it with increasing frequency and in a variety of circumstances."
--William G. Weaver and Robert M. Pallitto
It has been attempted a few times.
The "Patriotic Act" gives the green light for all kinds of abuse and "justify" them under the "law"
It is precisely this "patriotic Act" that convinces me there is NO difference between political regimes that call themselves with different names, but do the exact same thing to their people (see my profile for clarifications).
the problem is not Congress making a law - but the courts refusal to seek the proper people to evaluate the states claim.
if handled properly by a judge, the judge could choose an independent assessment and even have an independent reviewer black out what would be considered state secret to the extent that the lawyers coud then battle over the speculation of what was blacked out.
this was accomplished 20 to 30 times following WWII and a few times following Korea and Vietnam.
the courts are the problem just as in all cases where the government is involved.
Did Obama directly order the killing of a 16 year old US citizen or was this a death ordered by someone lower down the chain of command?
And what happened about the four Americans killed at Kent State University?
They were attacked for being unAmerican and people said they deserved it... Even the girl who witnessed it was called names and attacked verbally. Those were the days weren't they?
An intelligent leader would maintain the status of "plausible deniability", a wannabe dictator with an arrogant narcissistic attitude however boasts of his actions!
Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will
“How old are these people?” he asked, according to two officials present. “If they are starting to use children,” he said of Al Qaeda, “we are moving into a whole different phase.”
It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.
Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world … emityn.www
There is absolutely no law, neither domestic or international, that gives the President of the United States the authority to order the death of any human being outside of a war zone without Due Process! Members of Congress have demanded under what authority the President feels the right to perform these actions. Like so much of his Presidency, Obama has remained silent, refusing to acknowledge Congressional requests. He is operating outside the law, he is conducting himself in a criminal capacity. Shame on the people for not holding him accountable for his actions.
May the world forgive the heinous actions of the United States, these actions do not represent the will of the people. It is the corporate fascists that have infiltrated the United States government that is the problem! Living in a state of denial is not beneficial to the well being of the United States or the peaceful existence of humanity over the globe.
by Longhunter 11 years ago
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."- Oath of the President of the United States of AmericaIn your opinion, has...
by OLYHOOCH 12 years ago
Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's...
by SparklingJewel 15 years ago
I don't know much about it, except what I have read from others. But as it sounds like it threatens US sovereignty and safety. I am against it. And also for the very reason that I don't get to vote on it. What is the current news concerning Congress' input on this subject?
by TheSituation 13 years ago
I just finished writing a hub on this topic and I am wondering if people out there think that we will be able to come to a consensus on a common sense approach to immigration or is this topic just too emotional for serious rational discussion? Thought?
by A Little TRUTH 10 years ago
Obama swore to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. Is he not obligated to obey it?The full text of the Presidential Oath of Office, as Obama said it today, inauguration day, and as specified by Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America, reads:“I do...
by SparklingJewel 13 years ago
A view point sure to rankle all sides of the issue what say you?http://www.voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.p … ution-2940
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|