Military Oath vs Tyrannical Government

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.
The year 2000 called, it wants its constitutional crisis back.
 
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.
And probably 70% of all guns
 
"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.
I agree with your post but man, you guys are excusing trumps attacks on the 2nd. He'll implement as many little infringements as he can, next admin infringe a bit more with their side excusing it, so on and so forth until theres nothing left to infringe
 
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
What do you mean "coming around?" I've been insisting on the danger of a Trump presidency being the erosion of norms and stress on democratic fabric since way before the 2016 election, and that while we'd probably keep our shit together through his reign, it only damages us and makes us even more vulnerable to a smarter, more malicious leader with greater ambitions and fewer obstacles to total power.
 
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?
Apples and oranges. The United States is a constitutional federal republic, not a true democracy (electoral college), and what is the constitution of the U.S. but a reflection of its people. All three branches of the U.S. government are independent entities. A system of 'checks-and-balances'. The President can't dissolve the Supreme court or Congress, just like Congress can't dissolve the Presidency or the Supreme Court. Civics 101.
 
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.
Not happening. The electoral college chooses the U.S. president, not the people or the popular vote - the U.S. is not a true democracy.
 
What do you mean "coming around?" I've been insisting on the danger of a Trump presidency being the erosion of norms and stress on democratic fabric since way before the 2016 election, and that while we'd probably keep our shit together through his reign, it only damages us and makes us even more vulnerable to a smarter, more malicious leader with greater ambitions and fewer obstacles to total power.
Hmm I seem to recall you believing Trump to be the problem, not a culmination of American structural problems going back decades.

As far as your second point goes I'm worried for our democracy. The foundation is set.
 
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.
Very common in most third world countries and it happens to a certain degree here in the U.S. also:
. Look at how Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated Bush to invade Iraq.
. Look at how super PACs work in supporting a political candidate.
. Look at how the Jewish influence in the U.S. congress influences Israeli policy.
 
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.

@Fawlty as well

He's already started planting the seed... and you know his supporters would back him as long as it made libs angry!

 
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).

If a Republican President and Congress instituted the draft for a war with Iran, I highly, highly doubt there would be any violent resistance from the 2A supporters against such tyranny, aside from maybe a few isolated incidents. I think most of them would consider it less flagrant for the government to take their neighbors away than their guns.
 
Hmm I seem to recall you believing Trump to be the problem, not a culmination of American structural problems going back decades.

As far as your second point goes I'm worried for our democracy. The foundation is set.
Trump is a special kind of shitbag for sure, but also a logical extension of the Tea Party and reality television and the death of American conservatism. In terms of "culmination of American structural problems," Trump is a symptom that is also a disease, but I see those things as separate in the sense that Trump was elected for a reason, and capitalized on the political state of America which preceded him.

Like, Mitch McConnell isn't a Trump problem, and Paul Ryan wasn't a Trump problem. I don't think American conservatism was anywhere close to healthy before the latest movement. I think under somebody like Romney, we wouldn't need to ask questions like the OP asks, but when Romney lost, it's like the party just gave up on everything. Not that Romney was a saint, but he was both an antidote to Trumpism and a conservative that wasn't among the worst (notably he was not a racist, which is really important, though being Mormon with binders full of women [kidding], maybe a bit of a misogynist).

Trump functions like a power-charging hub for all of the ills of the right. The thieves, racists, woman haters, zealots, education haters, climate deniers - hell, everybody except military hawks - they all charge their batteries on him.

So to get to the point of what you said, it's complicated and Trump is both a serious new problem and a result of problems that preceded him. I'm rambling a bit but hope this makes sense. And sorry if this derails a bit, but it's a major reason for asking this thread's question.
 
Apples and oranges. The United States is a constitutional federal republic, not a true democracy (electoral college), and what is the constitution of the U.S. but a reflection of its people. All three branches of the U.S. government are independent entities. A system of 'checks-and-balances'. The President can't dissolve the Supreme court or Congress, just like Congress can't dissolve the Presidency or the Supreme Court. Civics 101.

I think everyone knows this here. Checks and balances haven't always stopped dictators in the past from seizing power. The difference here is our military and their pledge to the constitution and not the leader.
 
I think everyone knows this here. Checks and balances haven't always stopped dictators in the past from seizing power. The difference here is our military and their pledge to the constitution and not the leader.
I guess the heart of the matter is whether the oath is simply normative and therefore fragile in and of itself, or whether it is truly a bedrock value (when healthy, it's barely possible to tell which is more true). I think individuals differ strongly on this point.
 
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 think if things get to that point you would rave rebel militia and probably loyal militia who would each join up with military that stayed loyal and military that disobeyed the order. After that you have a horrific civil war

It doesnt seem likely at this moment in time. We bicker and squabble with one another but not like the 1790s or 1850s
 
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.

Is it hard to live in fear?
 
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.
Eerie. With literally no hyperbole. For the faint of heart, blinders have been made available at the expense of progress. Enjoy.
 
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?
Law enforcement officers make the same oath, fwiw. So ideally that’s another layer of protection.
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.
But this is also a reality for many. I don’t agree with “most of the time,” but of course there are military members who side with the enemy and law enforcement officers who are criminals. That’s just human nature, oaths don’t mean anything to the deceptive criminals or traitors of the world. And money alone can be enough for the greedy to betray an oath.
 
Just look at the oaths we take in marriage and how often people stick to those lmao
 
I guess the heart of the matter is whether the oath is simply normative and therefore fragile in and of itself, or whether it is truly a bedrock value (when healthy, it's barely possible to tell which is more true). I think individuals differ strongly on this point.

The chain of command is of paramount importance to a lifestyle as regimented as the military. From what I've read, the chain is as follows:

1) Constitution and the Supremacy clause
2) Uniform Code of Military Justice
3) Superior officers all the way up to the President

I remember when candidate Trump in 2016 stated that if he was elected he would order the targeting of terrorists family members and torture of known terrorists. Military officers including Generals responded and stated that they would not follow that order. In reality though who knows, we waterboarded suspected muslim terrorists while decades before we prosecuted the Japanese for doing the same thing to our soldiers.
 
I think everyone knows this here. Checks and balances haven't always stopped dictators in the past from seizing power. The difference here is our military and their pledge to the constitution and not the leader.

if you see revolutions and coups in other countries, usually the people doing the revolution or coup have a bunch of officers and generals in the army that back the revolutionaries. In such an instance in America, say the general and his officers order the division or whatever to side with the tyrants. I am very skeptical that the troops wouldn't obey the orders. In order to make things even more devious, you could have the scenario that both the government and the 'tyrants' are arguing that they are defending the constitution
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,834
Messages
55,311,001
Members
174,733
Latest member
NiTrok
Back
Top