Opinion Hegseth to U.S. generals: "Prepare for war."

[oldshadow]

Yeah, the oath of loyalty is to the constitution, the oath of obedience is to the office of the president, not the person or political party occupying the presidency.

The constitutionality of a presidential order is determined by the Supreme Court not an individual service member or vet.

 

[Blayt7hh]

You're both correct and both wrong. The nuance of the Oath is tricky when put into practice because, yes you are obligated to defy all non lawful orders (including from the president) but determining what is and isn't not lawful in the moment can be complicated. And disobeying a direct order can still yield immediate consequences. A Jag would have to later determine if you were justified and reverse any potential punishments.

Obviously, POTUS can't say "deploy to New Orleans and clear out crime by force". That is clearly unlawful. But, as he has demonstrated, he can toe that line in certain cases. That's where the nuance comes into play.

It’s very complicated. I watched a YouTube a few month back where a former marine and current lawyer explained it. I’ll see if I can find it and post it later, but the short of it was his advice was don’t take matters into your own hands trying to determine a lawful from unlawful order

 

[Rational Poster]

The constitutionality of a presidential order is determined by the Supreme Court not an individual service member or vet.

I mean this just isn't true, the oath itself implies willful disobedience to unlawful orders.

 

[DoctorTaco]

I'm not pressed about 48 year olds hitting sub 20 on their 3 mile. I'm more concerned with them passing as high within their capabilities as possible while avoiding injuries.

This feels reasonable

 

[oldshadow]

It’s very complicated. I watched a YouTube a few month back where a former marine and current lawyer explained it. I’ll see if I can find it and post it later, but the short of it was his advice was don’t take matters into your own hands trying to determine a lawful from unlawful order

You can but you throw the dice as an active service member. If you are right and upheld you still will suffer in some way most likely. If you are wrong you could spend the rest of your life in federal prison.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

It’s very complicated. I watched a YouTube a few month back where a former marine and current lawyer explained it. I’ll see if I can find it and post it later, but the short of it was his advice was don’t take matters into your own hands trying to determine a lawful from unlawful order

Yeah. Had a great convo with 2 jags about it. It boiled down to, "unless it is very obviously illegal (killing civilians, stealing shit, etc) then let military lawyers handle it on the back end".

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

Ypu can but you throw the dice as an active service member. If you are right and upheld you still will suffer in some way most likely. If you are wrong you could spend the rest of your life in federal prison.

Yeah. And if you obey and shouldn't have you still get fucked. It is a very shit situation no matter what.

 

[Shaun K]

It is unlawful unless under very specific circumstances that are properly outlined in the UCMJ and other legal documentation. President does not have absolute authority. He is still subject to the laws and limitations placed upon the executive branch. He can't say deploy military against the civilian population UNLESS very specific boxes are checked.

If the president said "go into congress and arrest every democrat" you would not be obligated to obey that. But if he said "deploy to DC as a show of force" you would. Nuance

I’m not sure why you’re arguing, my statement was that you swear an oath to the president, and you do-directly. To what extent is outlined under UCMJ, but you still swear am oath directly. There are always caveats. But dude said you didnt swear an oath to the president-but you very clearly do.

 

[oldshadow]

I mean this just isn't true, the oath itself implies willful disobedience to unlawful orders.

With the president who establishes if an order is unlawful/unconstitutional. The Supreme Court thats who. You can refuse an order from the president. If the Supreme Court rules it was unlawful they will let you out of prison but the odds of that are the same as a snowball in hell.

 

[Shaun K]

I mean I don't think it's that complicated. The oath is to the constitution and the office, not the person in the office.

Even Scalia has talked about this.

It very clearly states an oath to the president lol

 

[Rational Poster]

With the president who establishes if an order is unlawful/unconstitutional. The Supreme Court thats who. You can refuse an order from the president. If the Supreme Court rules it was unlawful they will let you out of prison but the odds of that are the same as a snowball in hell.

This doesn't dispute anything I've said.

 

[Rational Poster]

It very clearly states an oath to the president lol

No it doesn't, it's an oath of obedience to lawful orders from the President, not the President.

 

[cincymma79]

i definitely liked the no fatties part

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

I’m not sure why you’re arguing, my statement was that you swear an oath to the president, and you do-directly. To what extent is outlined under UCMJ, but you still swear am oath directly. There are always caveats. But dude said you didnt swear an oath to the president-but you very clearly do.

I think hes arguing to their president vs the office of the presidency...which are both correct. It's just splitting hairs. While Trump is sitting president, you are loyal to his orders. As were we were to Biden before him. That ends once their terms end.

The concern some have is that Trump is trying to gain loyalty from people that will remain loyal once he's out of office. Is this the case? You could argue either way.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

i definitely liked the no fatties part

That part was good.

 

[oldshadow]

This doesn't dispute anything I've said.

The point is you follow a presidential order unless the Supreme Court over rules it.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

No it doesn't, it's an oath of obedience to lawful orders from the President, not the President.

The point is you follow a presidential order unless the Supreme Court over rules it.

You're saying the same thing from different perspectives.

Disobey any order that clearly conflicts with existing SCOTUS Orders or the UCMJ. Otherwise, do what ya gotta do.

 

[Shaun K]

No it doesn't, it's an oath of obedience to lawful orders from the President, not the President.

Still an oath to the president lol

 

[Rational Poster]

Still an oath to the president lol

No it's still not an oath to the president. It's an oath of obedience to the President's orders whoever they may be, not specifically to the president as a person.

 

[Shaun K]

I think hes arguing to their president vs the office of the presidency...which are both correct. It's just splitting hairs. While Trump is sitting president, you are loyal to his orders. As were we were to Biden before him. That ends once their terms end.

The concern some have is that Trump is trying to gain loyalty from people that will remain loyal once he's out of office. Is this the case? You could argue either way.

After he’s out he can fuck himself. While he’s in there’s still an oath to obey him, therefor its an oath to him