RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,754
- 10,567
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That, I think, is a reasonable criticism of this statement.No, they don't. That is the falseness in their statement.
Congress cannot have their back after the action. There is almost nothing Congress can do for the troop after the fact. After the action, the ball is totally in the hands of the Judiciary.
But it is not up to your interpretation that such has happened.Do multiple violations of the Posse Comitatus Act count?
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"
Or deployment of National Guard in violation of the terms of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 ?
Whenever--
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.
And this is Generation Z we're talking about. Even Millennials are exasperated with Gen Z.Interpreting whether or not an order from a commander-in-chief to the military is unconstitutional is rarely is something so simple and clear cut that a 19-23 year old kid can make an accurate on-the-spot judgment call.
Nobody is supposing that a crisis of this kind will involve individual decisions by rank-and-file soldiers.But it is not up to your interpretation that such has happened.
That's up to Congress and the Court.
The military must obey orders that are not "manifestly illegal." The “manifestly illegal” threshold is high: Something that is obviously in direct violation of existing statutes. If legal interpretation is plausible--and the White House lawyers will make sure it is plausible--it will fall below the manifestly illegal threshold.
The order would not have gone that far down the chain unless Pentagon lawyers had already determined the order was not "manifestly illegal."Not really. What they are doing is to remind those young and more impressionable service members is that they can safely follow a unit commander who has rejected an unlawful order (probably on the advice of his attorney.) from higher up.
The "political support" of a handful of Congresscritters would be irrelevant after the fact. The matter would be in the hands of the Judiciary. There is nothing those politicians could do for those troops, except contribute to their "Go Fund Me."They way I see it, they want the military to know that they have at least some political support if they mutiny should the order to invade Argentina come down.
But that is who these Congresscritters were appealing to.Nobody is supposing that a crisis of this kind will involve individual decisions by rank-and-file soldiers.
Idk. I mean I kind of enjoy it. It’s so easy to do. If I were some big famous person I’d be trying to push his buttons every single day.It's just embarrassing to watch him melt down every 5 minutes over some perceived sleight to his NPD
Yes, because they're encouraging things that are going to create consequences for younger, more impressionable service members.
What do you suppose happens to some random young Sgt. who thought they were doing the right and refused an order (and encouraged his crew to do the same), and it winds up being a case where a court ends up deciding it's B and not A?
What about a presidential order to invade Venezula? Because that is what I think the Democrats were concerned with, more so than concerned with domestic use of the military--though that might come into it s well, should such an invasion result in mass protests.The order would not have gone that far down the chain unless Pentagon lawyers had already determined the order was not "manifestly illegal."
The "manifestly illegal" bar is very high. The specific order that unit commander received would not itself be "manifestly illegal." A mere deployment order will almost never be "manifestly illegal" at that level.
The president wouldn't explicitly order them to "fire on civilians." But the president might order them into a situation where firing on civilians could happen...and that order would not have been "manifestly illegal."
For instance, as earlier mentioned, the military was ordered to support federal integration court orders. White segregationists could conceivably have fired upon the soldiers, and the soldiers would have responded accordingly.
The could stand up to their responisbility.The "political support" of a handful of Congresscritters would be irrelevant after the fact. The matter would be in the hands of the Judiciary. There is nothing those politicians could do for those troops, except contribute to their "Go Fund Me."
No, they don't. That is the falseness in their statement.
Congress cannot have their back after the action. There is almost nothing Congress can do for the troop after the fact. After the action, the ball is totally in the hands of the Judiciary.
Congress must act up front, before the action. If they don't want the military to perform an action, Congress must explicitly make that action illegal before the fact ("no _ex post facto_ laws"). Or Congress must take the president to the Supreme Court immediately after he issues orders they don't like (if they signal the intention to do that, the military will drag its feet).
But "have your back" is a false statement that will get young, passionate troops in deep, life-long trouble.
But it is not up to your interpretation that such has happened.
That's up to Congress and the Court.
The military must obey orders that are not "manifestly illegal." The “manifestly illegal” threshold is high: Something that is obviously in direct violation of existing statutes. If legal interpretation is plausible--and the White House lawyers will make sure it is plausible--it will fall below the manifestly illegal threshold.
...and the POTUS gets a free pass? Trump can literally say anything because and be ignored...because? Is this the new standard for Executive behavior?
Encouraging rank-in-file servicemen to disobey orders isn't one of those levers.
Although, and this is something we're discovering today, those levers are few and short.Our system of government has levers to pull to "keep the president in-line"
Are you sure?No...
But the military members aren't the ones who decide whether a president's orders are unconstitutional.
That would be judicial branch's job to take up a case and determine that.
But the circumstances in question here aren't "clearly illegal orders".Are you sure?
I've always heard that service members themselves have the responsibility to resist clearly illegal orders. They dont have to wait for it to go to trial. You are ordered "kill that p.o.w. over there".... then what?
I dont believe the video in questions mentions any specific circumstances.But the circumstances in question here aren't "clearly illegal orders".
This isn't a case where a commanding officer is overtly telling troops to demand to be quartered in private residences without the consent of the homeowner or telling them "go shoot anyone who doesn't agree to be a Christian".
This is stemming from the president federalizing and deploying troops to states where the governors (and local law enforcement at the orders of their governors) are refusing to go along with federal laws (and in some cases, even declaring intent to obstruct federal law enforcement)
Legally speaking, it's still in a state of ambiguity.
As I noted before, there is historical precedent for similar circumstances, most notably, Eisenhower deploying the Airborne division to Arkansas when the governor down there was ignoring federal mandates and obstructing.
So people are trying to depict this as if it's a no-brainer and an easy judgement call that's so obvious that even the legally-uninitiated 19-23 could make it...but it's not.
I don't agree with your characterization. They are calling on service members to follow their oath of office.
“We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders; you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”
“Know that we have your back, because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.
You're right, it's a difficult decision. Admiral Holsey resigned rather than make such a decision. Is it legal to kill unidentified civilians on the high seas by blowing up boats not headed for America? Presumably whoever replaced him think it is not manifestly illegal, but where does that leave subordinates?But the circumstances in question here aren't "clearly illegal orders".
This isn't a case where a commanding officer is overtly telling troops to demand to be quartered in private residences without the consent of the homeowner or telling them "go shoot anyone who doesn't agree to be a Christian".
This is stemming from the president federalizing and deploying troops to states where the governors (and local law enforcement at the orders of their governors) are refusing to go along with federal laws (and in some cases, even declaring intent to obstruct federal law enforcement)
Legally speaking, it's still in a state of ambiguity.
As I noted before, there is historical precedent for similar circumstances, most notably, Eisenhower deploying the Airborne division to Arkansas when the governor down there was ignoring federal mandates and obstructing.
So people are trying to depict this as if it's a no-brainer and an easy judgement call that's so obvious that even the legally-uninitiated 19-23 could make it...but it's not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?