Military Oath vs Tyrannical Government

Voodoo_Child906

Red Belt
@red
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
9,478
Reaction score
3,621
Oath for Officers:

"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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Our military pledges an oath to the Constitution and not the President or the government. Question is, how does a tyrannical government form with this kind of check placed on it. For instance, If the Executive branch ordered the dissolvement of the Supreme Court and Congress wouldn't Dunford and the other Joint Chiefs refuse the order and place the President under arrest?
 
In short, when things get that bad, order that would instill and uphold that value has already broken down and oaths don't mean so much. It becomes about choosing sides, interests and loyalties, etc.

In theory, a president could come out of left field with blatantly dictatorial actions (and we'd smack them down), but in a strong democracy like ours or Canada's, for something like that to have a chance of working, it would require significant erosion of norms and values over quite a period of time, or some kind of crazy natural or economic disaster, or a military invasion.
 
Just like everything else, it relies on the individual.
 
Oath for Officers:

"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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Our military pledges an oath to the Constitution and not the President or the government. Question is, how does a tyrannical government form with this kind of check placed on it. For instance, If the Executive branch ordered the dissolvement of the Supreme Court and Congress wouldn't Dunford and the other Joint Chiefs refuse the order and place the President under arrest?

  1. Military personnel are instructed that they are not legally bound by the UCMG to follow an illegal order.
  2. The Constitution establishes three separate, but equal branches of government. The Executive branch has no authority to dissolve any of the Judicial branch.
 
Once you need the army to step in, the shit has hit the fan to the point of no return. You might also get the people 'restoring order' becoming the new tyrants. Anyways, a situation like this is highly highly unlikely and would need a lot of time to fester out of control that badly.
 
In short, when things get that bad, order that would instill and uphold that value has already broken down and oaths don't mean so much. It becomes about choosing sides, interests and loyalties, etc.

In theory, a president could come out of left field with blatantly dictatorial actions (and we'd smack them down), but in a strong democracy like ours or Canada's, for something like that to have a chance of working, it would require significant erosion of norms and values over quite a period of time, or some kind of crazy natural or economic disaster, or a military invasion.

So in this case do you see the 2nd Am. and a peoples militia still being necessary? Or does our Military check make the 2nd Am antiquated?
 
  1. Military personnel are instructed that they are not legally bound by the UCMG to follow an illegal order.
  2. The Constitution establishes three separate, but equal branches of government. The Executive branch has no authority to dissolve any of the Judicial branch.

So as we stand right now a tyrannical government has almost no chance of taking power because of our checks and balances?
 
So in this case do you see the 2nd Am. and a peoples militia still being necessary? Or does our Military check make the 2nd Am antiquated?
I'm not sure I understand how the limits of military oaths map onto this. It's antiquated for sure, but maybe it's actually a strong enough deterrent threat against tyranny-siding officers? Dunno.
 
Oaths dont really mean shit. Most of the time it is just part of a ceremony. There is no magic holding people to their oaths.
 
I'm not sure I understand how the limits of military oaths map onto this. It's antiquated for sure, but maybe it's actually a strong enough deterrent threat against tyranny-siding officers? Dunno.

2A supporters say that a regulated militia is a check against a tyrannical government, some believe the military and it's oath provide a better check. It sounds like you believe a well regulated militia is still needed?

The question makes sense in my head haha, not sure if it does here.
 
Oath for Officers:

"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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Our military pledges an oath to the Constitution and not the President or the government. Question is, how does a tyrannical government form with this kind of check placed on it. For instance, If the Executive branch ordered the dissolvement of the Supreme Court and Congress wouldn't Dunford and the other Joint Chiefs refuse the order and place the President under arrest?

In short, when things get that bad, order that would instill and uphold that value has already broken down and oaths don't mean so much. It becomes about choosing sides, interests and loyalties, etc.

In theory, a president could come out of left field with blatantly dictatorial actions (and we'd smack them down), but in a strong democracy like ours or Canada's, for something like that to have a chance of working, it would require significant erosion of norms and values over quite a period of time, or some kind of crazy natural or economic disaster, or a military invasion.

Just like everything else, it relies on the individual.

Once you need the army to step in, the shit has hit the fan to the point of no return. You might also get the people 'restoring order' becoming the new tyrants. Anyways, a situation like this is highly highly unlikely and would need a lot of time to fester out of control that badly.

I know this is not America and there are more checks and balances in place but this is a chilling expose on just how quickly the checks and balances in gov't can be bought and corrupted and or replaces once a new Leader can get a few key people in place.


Well worth the 50 minutes to watch IMO.
 
In short, when things get that bad, order that would instill and uphold that value has already broken down and oaths don't mean so much. It becomes about choosing sides, interests and loyalties, etc.

In theory, a president could come out of left field with blatantly dictatorial actions (and we'd smack them down), but in a strong democracy like ours or Canada's, for something like that to have a chance of working, it would require significant erosion of norms and values over quite a period of time, or some kind of crazy natural or economic disaster, or a military invasion.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.

Of course, the United States has much stronger institutions than Germany did in the 1930s, or Russia does today. Both Clinton and Obama in their speeches stressed the importance and strength of these institutions. The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

The national press is likely to be among the first institutional victims of Trumpism. There is no law that requires the presidential administration to hold daily briefings, none that guarantees media access to the White House. Many journalists may soon face a dilemma long familiar to those of us who have worked under autocracies: fall in line or forfeit access. There is no good solution (even if there is a right answer), for journalism is difficult and sometimes impossible without access to information.
 
If a President O'Rourke, Harris, Booker, or the other nutters calling for gun seizure, ordered the U.S. Military to seize the arms of the U.S. populace, we can only hope our members of the military take that oath seriously and do not follow such an order.
 
Last edited:
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.

Of course, the United States has much stronger institutions than Germany did in the 1930s, or Russia does today. Both Clinton and Obama in their speeches stressed the importance and strength of these institutions. The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

The national press is likely to be among the first institutional victims of Trumpism. There is no law that requires the presidential administration to hold daily briefings, none that guarantees media access to the White House. Many journalists may soon face a dilemma long familiar to those of us who have worked under autocracies: fall in line or forfeit access. There is no good solution (even if there is a right answer), for journalism is difficult and sometimes impossible without access to information.

That does bring up an interesting possible scenario in 2020. If Trump loses by a narrow margin and he declares that illegals tipped the vote in key swing states he may declare the election null and void and refuse the peaceful transition of power. Whatever way the supreme court rules will enrage the other side and all hell may break loose.
 
2A supporters say that a regulated militia is a check against a tyrannical government, some believe the military and it's oath provide a better check. It sounds like you believe a well regulated militia is still needed?

The question makes sense in my head haha, not sure if it does here.
Not sure, but no I don't think either the military oath or the second amendment are very good checks against tyranny, at least the expected tyranny. Like today, 2A supporters barely even notice how tyrannical this administration is. Most would be on the side of tyranny. No idea why people have so much trouble seeing that their gun-warped concept of "patriotism" is just as likely to back tyranny as it is to fight it (probably more so in America).
 
That does bring up an interesting possible scenario in 2020. If Trump loses by a narrow margin and he declares that illegals tipped the vote in key swing states he may declare the election null and void and refuse the peaceful transition of power. Whatever way the supreme court rules will enrage the other side and all hell may break loose.

I'd think that would be rightfully be seen as a coup, validation of Trump as a dictatorial figure, and possibly the spark for another civil war even pre Supreme Court judgment. Think more along the lines of the day the announcement was made. Plausible deniability would be firmly out the window for a statement like that. You can't just publicly proclaim the usurpation of democracy and wave that off as a joke. Not if you're the president, anyway. Anyone defending that would be truly lost.
 
That does bring up an interesting possible scenario in 2020. If Trump loses by a narrow margin and he declares that illegals tipped the vote in key swing states he may declare the election null and void and refuse the peaceful transition of power. Whatever way the supreme court rules will enrage the other side and all hell may break loose.
We really shouldn't underestimate that possibility. He would have the support of at least what, 20% of people as a low estimate? Maybe as high as 35-40% depending on circumstance.
 
Not sure, but no I don't think either the military oath or the second amendment are very good checks against tyranny, at least the expected tyranny. Like today, 2A supporters barely even notice how tyrannical this administration is. Most would be on the side of tyranny. No idea why people have so much trouble seeing that their gun-warped concept of "patriotism" is just as likely to back tyranny as it is to fight it (probably more so in America).

"We the People" would be defending ourselves from a tyrannical government. One that does things like:
  • Weaponize the IRS against political opponents (Obama)
  • Weaponize the DOJ against political opponents (Obama)
  • Trample on 4th Amendment Rights with massive demasking of U.S. Citizens (Obama)
  • Trample on the 2nd Amendment by seizing arms (Current Democrat Candidates)
The Founders armed the citizens to stop tyrannical governments, both foreign and domestic. They determined it was a natural born right to be able to defend yourself against tyrannical rule. Leftist are all too willing take that right way and they show incredible high levels of tyranny.
 
for something like that to have a chance of working, it would require significant erosion of norms and values over quite a period of time
Glad to see you're coming around on the decay of society front

We don't get a cult leader like Trump as president without substantial disintegration
 
Back
Top