Do we need the military to uphold its oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic?
They are not the only ones who swear to do that. I have taken variations on that oath when I was admitted to the bar, when I worked for a state agency, even when I did a stint in the federal government. Legislators take that as well.The military so far has been upholding their oath. We need to start prosecuting the other people who are failing to uphold their oath of office. They have no expiration date.But I presume you are calling for a military coup to replace Trump. To which I also say: you’re a frigging moron if you think that will end well. Military coups seem to uniformly end badly for the citizens at large. You do not want, nor should you ever wish for, a military coup or a civil war. On one side, you would have the US military. On the other side you would have one of the most heavily armed citizenry in the world, a good portion of whom I think would take up arms because a military coup is exactly the sort of doomsday scenario that the 2nd Amendment exists, in part, for.The military’s oath is to make sure that the Constitution keeps functioning. Its not to take out a government because some people have yet to prove a case against the sitting president. In fact, while the courts are open, while both houses of Congress are in session with duly elected and sworn representatives, it would be a violation of their of oath to do what you are suggesting.Not only that, but the charges that have been brought in the Manafort case have absolutely zero to do with Trump. They are tax charges from years before the campaign even happened. So calling the Administration a criminal enterprise is an absurd statement.
Should US soldiers defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
US Soldiers are Vassels of the Sovereign Authors of the U.S. Constitution. When one reads and comprehends the Preamble to the Constitution, The People and their Posterity are not the Immigrant Citizens that yearned for freedom and fled from their homelands due to oppression. Nothing in the Constitution is provided for Immigrants to ever become anything other than Politically a CITIZEN in/of this Nation, who are required to sware the Oath to Defend the Authors Constitution from all of IT'S enemies. An example would be Custer's Last Stand against Native Americans. Everyone of those Troopers had sworn to defend the edits of the Founders Law of the Land.
How does the US military reconcile the enlistment oath with posse comitatus?
In particular enlistees swear that they will protect and defend the constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." The posse comitatus act of 1878 forbids the use of any US armed force against a US citizen, period. How has the military justified this oath legally? Who has challenged its legality in the past, and how? Surely a soldier who swears it may potentially be ordered into actions contrary to federal law; say, for instance, against an anarchist who thinks the constitution is a bad document, and that it should be scrapped, and the government reconstituted from scratch. The Warner Appropriations Act for 2007 may or may not have eaten away at posse comitatus; time will tell just how much the president can get away with under its new loopholes. But the enlistment oath has existed since long before that. 10 points to whoever best shows any controversy, historical conflict, legal opinions and cases, or absence thereof.
Do Police Officers take an Oath to uphold the law or the Constitution?
The oath taken by an enforcement officer is normally one that includes the source of the arrest powers associated with their position. Those in federal service take an oath similar to: I, [name], 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. So help me God. A municipal, county, or state law enforcement officer may take an oath similar to: “I swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of (State Name) and support the Constitution and laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of police officer according to the Constitution and laws of this State.”
Regarding the Oath of Enlistment for U.S. service members, would defending the Constitution ever take precedence over following the orders of the President of the United States?
It’s fairly unlikely even in these days that a POTUS would issue grossly illegal orders. He has too many advisors to tell him “You can’t do that.” But the oath is phrased that way for a reason.The famous “29 Palms Survey” conducted by LCDR E.G. Cunningham in 1994 as part of his work on a master’s level degree asked a hypothetical, the last of 46 questions: “The US government declares a ban on the sale, transportation and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon US citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US government.” Multiple choice answers ranged from “strongly agree” through “no opinion” to “strongly disagree.” The shocker here was that over a quarter of the respondent Marines answered that they would fire. Less than three quarters understood that it would be an illegal order which they would be absolutely expected to disobey.It would have been interesting to have a follow-up question for that quarter, to see how many crayons had been in their rations that day.
What is your attachment to the constitution?
The last requirement for becoming a US citizen is to pledge an allegiance to support and defend the US Constitution and the laws of the country. To meet this requirement, you will be required to take an Oath of the Allegiance in which you will disavow any foreign allegiances, pledge to uphold the Constitution, and serve and defend the country. Some language in the Oath can be changed to accommodate religious beliefs upon application to the USCIS.
Does the sworn u.s military oath to protect citizens from all threats foreign and domestic bypass police laws?
What oath are you talking about? There is no provision in the US military oath that says you are protecting citizens. Amongst the whole oath, the part that is relavent to your question says that you swear to protect and uphold the "Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" and to "obey the orders of the President and those officers appointed over" you, according to "regulations and the UCMJ". Even if the "citizens" were inserted, the UCMJ and Constitution are quite clear that civil law trumps all else. While your question is interesting, it is not valid for the US oath of service.