News Link • Military
The Constitution vs. the Commander-in-Chief: The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders
• John and Nisha Whitehead - The Rutherford Inst"The United States boldly broke with the ancient military custom of swearing loyalty to a leader. Article VI required that American Officers thereafter swear loyalty to our basic law, the Constitution… Our American Code of Military Obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law… This nation must have military leaders of principle and integrity so strong that their oaths to support and defend the Constitution will unfailingly govern their actions."—"Loyalty to the Constitution" plaque located on the grounds of the United States Military Academy
Every military servicemember's oath is a pledge to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
It is not an oath to a politician. It is not an oath to a party. And it is not an oath to the police state.
Yet what happens when those same men and women are being told—by their own government—that obedience to power and loyalty to a political leader come before allegiance to the Constitution they swore to uphold?
That question isn't hypothetical.
It is the moral line now being tested in real time, and it goes to the heart of what kind of country we are: do we live in a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law, or in a militarized police state where "legality" is whatever the person with the most power and the biggest army say it is?
The answer becomes painfully clear when you look at what our troops are being ordered to do—and what "we the people" are tacitly allowing them to be ordered to do—in the so-called name of national security.
Members of the military are now being deployed domestically to police their fellow American citizens in ways that trample the spirit, if not the letter, of the Posse Comitatus Act.





1 Comments in Response to The Constitution vs. the Commander-in-Chief: The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders
Here is where things become hazy. The Contract Clause in the Constitution allows people to make contracts with government. A contract or agreement changes the rights of both government and the person contracting. Government can only go by what is written in the contract (like the Social Security agreement in the Form SS-4). Nobody reads all the thing that attach to their signing up with Social Security. But the government does, and the government can only go by what is written, not by what people think they mean when the sign up. So, it is people unintentionally signing away some of their rights... or maybe all of them, when they sign government paperwork. When a person realizes, later, that he has lost some rights, the courts may side with him, or they may side against him.