Quote:
|
No one who has joined the military in the modern era does so with the expectation of standing and fighting on American soil.
|
Defending America from a direct attack is the only valid use of the US military. Anything other than defending American soil or ships from attack is a violation fo the Constitution.
Quote:
|
know you're a little bit nuts, so I'm kinda scared to even ask, but how exactly does following an order given by a sitting president, authorized by congress, unimpeeded by judicial review, result in a violation of the constitution?
|
I'm not "nuts" in the slightest and I've never been wrong about the Constitution. It's funny that a mental midget like you would call me nuts though.
First off let's go to your "authorized by congress" claim. The Constitution says
ONLY CONGRESS may declare war and even then only in the
DEFENSE of America. Congress
MAY NOT grant authority to the president to declare war or start wars. The war powers act is absolutely unconstitutional in its face and according to Marbury vs. Madison doesn't require judicial review to be disregarded.
Congress did not declare war. In fact when Congressman Ron Paul of Texas suggested we declare war after we launched our unprovoked and unconstitutional attack against Iraq, he was met with hostility.
The Constitution also defines our military solely for the defense of American soil and ships and for nothing else. That means STARTING wars against countries that have never attacked us and who pose no immediate danger (Iraq posed no danger) is unconstitutional. So are overthrowing the leadership of nations the president doesn't care for, humanitarian aid missions, training the military of other nations, stationing our troops around the world during times of peace in an imperialistic show of force, etc.
When any government employee is hired, they take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I think their oath should require them to read it first (the supreme court, congress, and the president clearly haven't).
Anyone who has taken that oath would be prevented from following an order to invade Iraq because...
1. The President has no Constitutional war making powers.
2. Congress may not grant war making powers to the President with anything other than a Constitutional amendment
3. Congress did not declare war.
4. Congress was prevented from declaring war because America was not in immediate danger and Iraq posed no threat.
5. The U.S. Military has no authority beyond our own borders and an order to use our DEFENSIVE military is a violation of the Constitution.
If someone did follow an unconstitutional order to invade Iraq from a sitting president (which is no different than if the president told them to shoot a bunch of school children), both the president and the soldier would be domestic enemies of the Constitution and both would have violated their oaths. In fact a good case could be made to brand them as traitors.
I know you're not the brightest bulb on the tree, but read it a few times so you can keep up.