Constitutional Conflicts within the Military

[Paslode]

I have been itching to inquire about this....A couple recent topics have brushed (as mentioned below) the topic of use of US Military Forces and the Constitution.

What is considered a conflict with the Constitution and what would be deemed appropiate use by the Constitution?

Originally Posted by The Reaper

My understanding of my oath or office is to go where my civilian controlled military leadership directs and follow orders from superior officers, except as it conflicts with the Constitution, the UCMJ, or the laws of land warfare.

Looks to me like a clear case of defending against all enemies, in this case foreign.

Anybody here remember a little thing with a crew called the Barbary Pirates?

TR

[afchic]

I for one think that the setting aside of Habeus Corpus would be something that would be very difficult for me as an officer. I know there have been times in our history when it is has been done, but it s avery thin line being walked when done. Our Active duty Military was not meant to be used as police forces, riot control, etc inside our borders, that is what the National Guard is for.

I would also have a problem if the military, whether guard, reserve of active duty was used to round up all the weapons of citizens of the United States. The second ammendment of the US ensures that we as citizens have the right to bear arms. If ever a time comes in this country to try and deny citizens those rights, we are no longer the nation I want to support and defend. I would desert before I would force a citizen of the US to give up their legally obtained arms.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by afchic

I for one think that the setting aside of Habeus Corpus would be something that would be very difficult for me as an officer. I know there have been times in our history when it is has been done, but it s avery thin line being walked when done. Our Active duty Military was not meant to be used as police forces, riot control, etc inside our borders, that is what the National Guard is for.

I would also have a problem if the military, whether guard, reserve of active duty was used to round up all the weapons of citizens of the United States. The second ammendment of the US ensures that we as citizens have the right to bear arms. If ever a time comes in this country to try and deny citizens those rights, we are no longer the nation I want to support and defend. I would desert before I would force a citizen of the US to give up their legally obtained arms.

You hit on what I have been thinking about, which is domestic side of things. Outside threats are more straight forward and your protecting the nation as a whole. Domestic problems seem like a wicked web for those who serve. They have sworn to protect the country by order of the Commander in Chief, yet you have personal convictions that may drastically conflict with those orders and with the wishes of civilian population you have sworn to protect.

So in the domestic sense, it would seem that after a point, personal convictions and Constitutional interpretation driving force in determining the conflict.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by afchic

I for one think that the setting aside of Habeus Corpus would be something that would be very difficult for me as an officer. I know there have been times in our history when it is has been done, but it s avery thin line being walked when done. Our Active duty Military was not meant to be used as police forces, riot control, etc inside our borders, that is what the National Guard is for.

I would also have a problem if the military, whether guard, reserve of active duty was used to round up all the weapons of citizens of the United States. The second ammendment of the US ensures that we as citizens have the right to bear arms. If ever a time comes in this country to try and deny citizens those rights, we are no longer the nation I want to support and defend. I would desert before I would force a citizen of the US to give up their legally obtained arms.

afchic I think you've confused Habeus Corpus with Posse Comitatus. I agree with much of your post, but I have to also believe that the US government wouldn't ever try to utilize the military to round up weapons of the citizens. Doing so in my opinion would risk a Coup against themselves as they would be pretty much shredding the constitution and as all of us in uniform have taken an oath to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic. After all you're talking about not only suspending Posse Comitatus, bu also abolishing the 2nd amendment as well as the 4th amendment.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but if they start down that road we're in for dark times.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Defender968

afchic I think you've confused Habeus Corpus with Posse Comitatus. I agree with much of your post, but I have to also believe that the US government wouldn't ever try to utilize the military to round up weapons of the citizens. Doing so in my opinion would risk a Coup against themselves as they would be pretty much shredding the constitution and as all of us in uniform have taken an oath to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic. After all you're talking about not only suspending Posse Comitatus, bu also abolishing the 2nd amendment as well as the 4th amendment.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but if they start down that road we're in for dark times.

Your right, I had it confused. I had Habeus Corpus on the brain from something I was reading this afternoon. Thanks for the correction

But what do we as the military do if they do decide to round up the weapons, even if they don't use us to do it. Do we stand by and watch? Me myself would head to the hills with my family. My husband and I have enough knowledge of outdoor survival (he more than me) that I think we could make it work.