America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,740 comments
  • 1,793,035 views
What's the Constitution of Sweden? Do you swear to defend it when you enlist?

An American wouldn't hesitate to answer the first question - it's drilled into them from primary/grade school and onwards - and while they might get a chunk of the text wrong they've all got the basic idea of it. Their servicepeople do swear to defend it and they're defending something they know. The chances of a US soldier not knowing what it is and breaking it out of ignorance is... not high, even if Swedish and Polish soldiers would blithely execute their own citizens for disobeying the president.


Hehe, what?

Personally I have seen how American soldiers are up close. If you think that Polish or Swedish soldiers would shoot their own people without any hesitation then there is an even greater risk of American soldiers doing it. Look for example how extremely trigger happy American Police is. You think American Military is even less trigger happy? No man...


I don't understand why you're asking why we would need the constitution in some sort of fictional utopia. We live in our reality, where people like yourself think that freedom of speech does not exist and would move to infringe it. That's why we need it.

What are you talking about?

Freedom of speech is a right everyone should have, but do not confuse freedom of speech with hate speech.

As I have said before... What would happen if you would go on stage and say that you want to kill the president? What would happen to you in that case? Why is that a no no but it is ok and refereed as "freedom of speech" by you to say it is ok to kill a minority that is a part of the society.

The thing is, when I was small I often thought that USA was like a sacred land with lots of ethnicities mixed together. I was shocked when we in elementary school got to know that USA is very racially divided. When Trump is saying that he will make America Great again, I cant help to think. for whom and was America that great at all? I mean imagine if you were black in the 50-60s... not so great then..
 
Last edited:
No, that's laws you're thinking of. Please look at the Human Rights thread to clarfiy the difference.


No, that's freedom of speech. See post 9655.

If it is (which it isn't), then your concept of what freedom of speech is cannot and does not exist.

It is and it can and it does.

That's because no right is supreme to another - as true rights cannot conflict.

Nope, they definitely can conflict. And when they do you have to choose which right is supreme in that situation.

As soon as you limit freedom of speech, it is not freedom of speech. It's censored speech.

You can call it what you want, but the conventional term is freedom of speech.
 
Look for example how extremely trigger happy American Police is. You think American Military is even less trigger happy? No man...

Dude, you've done this kind of thing before and you made a fool of yourself. Clearly your knowledge of what life is like in the U.S. has been based off of what you hear from the media which is sensationalist. If you want to comment on the U.S. I have no problem with it, but please try informing yourself on what it's actually like here compared to what you've heard.

As I have said before... What would happen if you would go on stage and say that you want to kill the president? What would happen to you in that case? Why is that a no no but it is ok and refereed as "freedom of speech" by you to say it is ok to kill a minority that is a part of the society.

In both cases you would likely be flagged for an investigation* and it would be determined whether or not the threat is real.

*presuming in both cases it was actually reported.
 
I fascinated by how this extensive attempt to prove a wrong definition of Freedom of Speech is supposed to justify how America nerds limitations on freedom of speech when the limitations specified by the wrong definition are already in place in America.


Though, on other hand, Hitler was morally in the clear because the German government said he was at the time, so I guess America had just been doing it wrong the whole time?
 
Freedom of speech is a right everyone should have, but do not confuse freedom of speech with hate speech.

Please explain to me what you think qualifies hate speech as something other than speech.

As I have said before... What would happen if you would go on stage and say that you want to kill the president? What would happen to you in that case? Why is that a no no but it is ok and refereed as "freedom of speech" by you to say it is ok to kill a minority that is a part of the society.

As mentioned by @Northstar, you'd be investigated by the not-so-secret service, would would ascertain whether the threat was real. To understand that they would talk to your friends, relatives, neighbors, etc. to find out whether they thought you would actually carry out the threat. They'd look for evidence to bring against you that you were actually going to act on your statements. They also look at whether you were actually trying to get other people to act on it to figure out whether you could be a conspirator in someone else's intent to kill.

It's not an infringement of freedom of speech.
 
? I am not purposing anything, I am just saying how it is for all of us. I do not care about a piece of paper and how hard or easy it is to amend. Because I do not live in USA, not my problem. I could care less about it, because it is just that. A paper with words on it. Anytime someone could just pick it up and rip it apart. If Trump turns out to be like Erdogan and just dont give a damn about it, what would the Constitution do then?

Will the The Constitution of independence suddenly come to life and do something about Trump and his military if it would come to a situation like that?

No, because it is just a piece of paper and cant do anything on its own for its people. IF people want a change do you think politicians would say, no it is impossible? The people would just vote for politicians that are willing to amend it. People of the country are the country not a piece of paper.


About a psychopath, why do you think psychopath are usually criminals? They lack the human compass that we have of what is wrong or right. They need rules so that they know what right and wrong is. It is not uncommon to find psychopath in the more"extreme" groups.
I don't know why I'm even responding but, that piece of paper actually protects us from our President.
Believe it or not...
And the military takes a similar oath to protect that piece of paper if the people or the President don't follow it.

To sum it up. Our country is controlled freedom. Sounds odd but it is what it is...
 
Hehe, what?

Personally I have seen how American soldiers are up close. If you think that Polish or Swedish soldiers would shoot their own people without any hesitation then there is an even greater risk of American soldiers doing it. Look for example how extremely trigger happy American Police is. You think American Military is even less trigger happy? No man...
Your argument was that US soldiers are so stupid that they don't know what the Constitution is and would break it if ordered. The fact that American children learn about the Constitution in school and - while not word-for-word perfect - know the general gist well before the age they enlist and swear to protect it destroys that argument.

I notice that you've now recognised this (and evaded the question about the Swedish Constitution) and are trying a different tack of "well the police are trigger happy so the soldiers are too". Imagine if the soldiers had a minimum of 10 weeks of training but the police didn't.

I wonder what your next obfuscation will be.

No, that's freedom of speech. See post 9655.
Which I already destroyed as unworkable. By your definition, if you say something that someone else disagrees with or makes them think you're stupid, they are breaching your freedom of speech.

Every action has a consequence. If you're defining 'freedom of speech' to mean 'immunity from consequence' your definition cannot exist and is thus incorrect.

Nope, they definitely can conflict.
Laws can. Rights can't. Rights codified as laws can, because laws can. Try the Human Rights thread.
And when they do you have to choose which right is supreme in that situation.
Rights coexist, they do not conflict. Codified rights - laws - can conflict, but only because they're improperly codified.
You can call it what you want, but the conventional term is freedom of speech.
:lol:

It can only be freedom of speech if it is free. I mean... look at the word. If it is limited, it is not free. You're very specifically talking about limiting - or censoring - what people can say and that is censorship, not freedom.

Trying to argue that free speech is still free speech when it's censored is like when people in the God thread try to argue that God knows everything (including what we will do, and it's all predetermined) but we have free will. That's not what the word 'free' means!
 
That does depend on what advise he was given, if it was against the DoD advice then it's an issue worth raising.

Then find where it says that, but once again he wouldn't be the first President to go with one side of the DoD over the other or outright overrule them. I can show you plenty of times Clinton did this whole "should I kill Bin Laden, or should I bring him to trial" and when and where to actually do it. I just showed you one instance.

The reason I said anything was because it sounds like another "hey let's peg Trump today, cause we just don't like the guy". I mean hell I don't like the guy, but I don't want to be that group that seems above (not saying you but the article does show it) it all and outcasts the annoying, obnoxious person. That is the notion I get here, that many people hate the guy will sacrifice some intellectual integrity to prove their hate is justified and call it a day. Why not question what went wrong here and was it exactly beneficial to have had any ground operations ongoing in the region in the first place.
 
It feels like I am not going forward here, apparently I am doing something again and again just to make a fool of myself?
Ok like I care how I am perceived, when I am giving my view on this whole issue. Nothing else, but apparently if you criticise that the notion that a piece of paper is just that if no one cares or that if there would be a coup d'etat the constitution magically would protect its people. I am not saying American soldiers are stupid, nice of you to twisting what I was saying Famine. But that with their oath to the Military, yes the military which means that they think that the orders are given in the country's best interests/intentions. Because how could the superiors and the President be wrong, right? And like I said before, Military all over the world is basically the same.. Why would you think we or any other country would not swear a oath of fidelity? You think soldiers in other countries are swearing oath of fidelity to an other country like Poland to Russia or Sweden to say China?

No one wants to restrict any freedom of speech, just make it clear that it should not be miss used. Not that I want any restrictions but a person saying something should be held responsible/accountable for eventual damages that may arise because of what he has said, if it can be proven in court that he was the cause. He should not be able to hide behind the Freedom of Speech "clause".

Hard to explain your viewpoint when no one is reading and like to twist/interpret everything out of context...

Bahh soon midnight, time for some Anime, braino is mucho emptyo :D
 
Last edited:
But that with their oath to the Military, yes the military which means that they think that the orders are given in the country's best interests/intentions.
Fourth time: Their oath is to defend the Constitution.
Why would you think we or any other country would not swear a oath of fidelity?
I would expect the soldiers in a monarchy to swear an oath to the monarch. Here's ours:
I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.
That means that orders from superiors come first even ahead of the law. Here's the US one again, since you ignored it the previous three times:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That means that the Constitution comes first, even ahead of the superiors. I trust you see the difference...
No one wants to restrict any freedom of speech, just make it clear that it should not be miss used. Not that I want any restrictions but a person saying something should be held responsible/accountable for eventual damages that may arise because of what he has said, if it can be proven in court that he was the cause.
So then you agree that freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you like without government censure, and not protection from the consequences of saying what you like, like I've been telling you for four pages?
 
Nope, they definitely can conflict. And when they do you have to choose which right is supreme in that situation.

If you perceive conflict between two or more rights, then you don't correctly understand what those rights are or how they're derived.
 
Fourth time: Their oath is to defend the Constitution.

I would expect the soldiers in a monarchy to swear an oath to the monarch. Here's ours:

That means that orders from superiors come first even ahead of the law. Here's the US one again, since you ignored it the previous three times:That means that the Constitution comes first, even ahead of the superiors. I trust you see the difference...

So then you agree that freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you like without government censure, and not protection from the consequences of saying what you like, like I've been telling you for four pages?

For the fourth time...what? Our king is the head of State but the real power is held by the government led by a PM we voted into power. Pretty much like in every other country.

A soldier is a soldier. You think he would lay down his gun and say no; I will not go to (town of your choice) to restrain the protesters there because Trump has done something they did not like. A coup d'etat is often well thought of and media/information would probably be like always cut off until the coup d'etat failed or succeeded.
The soldier would be court marshalled for disobeying his orders.
Every country has a constitution I think, but that does not mean that every county thinks it is a holy piece of paper with magical abilities. A paper is a paper, it is the people that decide the course of the country not a piece of paper that can be change if the people really want to. It is simple really if something is abused there will be laws and restrictions that will follow. Why do you think we have laws at all? It is not to restrict you but to not let you infringe on somebody else freedom or safety.
 
The soldier would be court marshalled for disobeying his orders.

And presuming the order was something along the lines of "Kill those civilians" and they didn't comply they would likely be let off with no punishment.

A paper is a paper.

It's what's written on the parchment that counts.

Why do you think we have laws at all? It is not to restrict you but to not let you infringe on somebody else freedom or safety.

And what do you print these laws on?
 
For the third time...what? Our king is the head of State but the real power is held by the government led by a PM we voted into power. Pretty much like in every other country...

A soldier is a soldier. You think he would lay down his gun and say no; I will not go to (town of your choice) to restrain the protesters there because Trump has done something they did not like. A coup d'etat is often well thought of and media/information would probably be like always cut off until the coup d'etat failed or succeeded.
The soldier would be court marshalled for disobeying his orders.
What about this aren't you getting?

Your soldiers, like ours, swear loyalty to people - monarchs, politicians, figureheads. US soldiers swear to protect the Constitution above all else. I've posted the actual oath FOUR times and you've ignored it and what this means every single time.

It means your soldiers do what they're told even if told to break the law. Ours do too. American soldiers don't if they're going to break the Constitution. This fundamentally dismantles your 'yeah well the troops will do what Trump says and if they don't the other troops will shoot them' type argument.

I asked you to tell me your Consititution. You couldn't (or didn't) and played dumb instead. Americans can without hesitation (not with total accuracy all the time, but good enough), because they learn it in school. This fundamentally dismantles your 'yeah well the troops won't know what they're doing and just obey' argument. They know the Constitution and are sworn to protect it - even from Trump.

And then you bring up courts martial! A military court that decides if the soldier has done his duty to protect the Constitution!

Every country has a constitution I think, but that does not mean that every county thinks it is a holy piece of paper with magical abilities. A paper is a paper, it is the people that decide the course of the country not a piece of paper that can be change if the people really want to. It is simple really if something is abused there will be laws and restrictions that will follow. Why do you think we have laws at all? It is not to restrict you but to not let you infringe on somebody else freedom or safety.
The US Constitution is a document that limits the scope of government. It doesn't create laws to bind the people, it creates laws to bind the government - I've already told you this as well, and you ignored that too.

Sure, it can be changed, but not by the people. It has to be changed by the legislative branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate), verified by the executive branch (the President) and tested for legality by the judicial branch (Supreme Court), but when it's changed it will only relax or further restrict the laws that bind the government.

I mean... you have read it, right?
 
The concept of freedom of speech isn't difficult to grasp, for the life of me I can't understand why this is even an argument. I'm assuming Europe protects freedom of speech in a similar way that the US does, or am I completely wrong? A quick Google search seems to suggest the European Union protects it in almost exactly the same way that the US does.

Personally I have seen how American soldiers are up close. If you think that Polish or Swedish soldiers would shoot their own people without any hesitation then there is an even greater risk of American soldiers doing it. Look for example how extremely trigger happy American Police is. You think American Military is even less trigger happy? No man...

That's not only ignorant and wrong, but it's also insulting to our country. While there are members of the US military that are d-bags, most of them are upstanding people that go through extensive training to learn to precisely not shoot anyone that isn't posing immediate danger. I've had enough friends and family in the military to know that the rules of engagement are drilled into them constantly, as well as the fact that everything they do will be analyzed by the media, fellow citizens, other world leaders, and their chain of command. If US military personnel were running amok shooting everything that moved, you better believe people would know about it. Do incidents happen? Of course, with a force of about 1.4 million servicemen the odds of something happening is present, but it's by no means the norm.

The US police aren't trigger happy either. I'm not sure how the media portrays US police in Europe, but a vast majority of police shootings are the result of the suspect doing something stupid like pulling a weapon or attempting to attack the officer or even a bystander. Yes, there have been incidents where police officers used excessive force or discharged their weapon without due cause, however, like servicemen, this isn't the norm, especially when you considering there's more than a million officers in the US.
 
That is a huge issue. So many conflicting interests at work. Is there any expectation that something will actually be done by the SCOTUS to make congressional districts less "manipulated"?
I doubt it. Even if they declare the practice unconstitutional, the replacement for their redistricting would have to be tested in the courts, and that could take years.
 
What about this aren't you getting?

Your soldiers, like ours, swear loyalty to people - monarchs, politicians, figureheads. US soldiers swear to protect the Constitution above all else. I've posted the actual oath FOUR times and you've ignored it and what this means every single time.

It means your soldiers do what they're told even if told to break the law. Ours do too. American soldiers don't if they're going to break the Constitution. This fundamentally dismantles your 'yeah well the troops will do what Trump says and if they don't the other troops will shoot them' type argument.

I asked you to tell me your Consititution. You couldn't (or didn't) and played dumb instead. Americans can without hesitation (not with total accuracy all the time, but good enough), because they learn it in school. This fundamentally dismantles your 'yeah well the troops won't know what they're doing and just obey' argument. They know the Constitution and are sworn to protect it - even from Trump.

And then you bring up courts martial! A military court that decides if the soldier has done his duty to protect the Constitution!


The US Constitution is a document that limits the scope of government. It doesn't create laws to bind the people, it creates laws to bind the government - I've already told you this as well, and you ignored that too.

Sure, it can be changed, but not by the people. It has to be changed by the legislative branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate), verified by the executive branch (the President) and tested for legality by the judicial branch (Supreme Court), but when it's changed it will only relax or further restrict the laws that bind the government.

I mean... you have read it, right?

I really do not understand what you are about here, your are saying I have ignored to answer something about an oath four times? I do not remember my oath that I gave to the military, it will be soon 20 years ago. It is not like we have a pledge we are thought in school to swear fielty to when class begins or something like that. How should I know my constitution in detail. I know I may go where I please, I know I can say and do what I want unless I do harm. If you want details, here :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Sweden Why should I be able to remember it by heart?

Every military out there including your own is basically the same, and I am telling you, if they are sent out to pacify an area in a American city they probably would do it without question because it is their orders and they probably would not know any details or anything because in situations like that. If Trump and his superiors say there is an uprising and media tells the same story or is simply shut off you think they would refuse to obey their orders to stifle the alleged illegal/unconstitutional uprising in that city? That would be all the soldier would probably know.. American soldiers are just soldiers like everywhere else.

You think the soldiers would know before hand that Trump or their superiors are up to something? They would just get an order to be ready within a short period of time and that is it, not time for thinking about stuff..

The government, supreme court and all that are working for the people are they not? If people wishes something they will without a doubt get their way.

The concept of freedom of speech isn't difficult to grasp, for the life of me I can't understand why this is even an argument. I'm assuming Europe protects freedom of speech in a similar way that the US does, or am I completely wrong? A quick Google search seems to suggest the European Union protects it in almost exactly the same way that the US does.



That's not only ignorant and wrong, but it's also insulting to our country. While there are members of the US military that are d-bags, most of them are upstanding people that go through extensive training to learn to precisely not shoot anyone that isn't posing immediate danger. I've had enough friends and family in the military to know that the rules of engagement are drilled into them constantly, as well as the fact that everything they do will be analyzed by the media, fellow citizens, other world leaders, and their chain of command. If US military personnel were running amok shooting everything that moved, you better believe people would know about it. Do incidents happen? Of course, with a force of about 1.4 million servicemen the odds of something happening is present, but it's by no means the norm.

The US police aren't trigger happy either. I'm not sure how the media portrays US police in Europe, but a vast majority of police shootings are the result of the suspect doing something stupid like pulling a weapon or attempting to attack the officer or even a bystander. Yes, there have been incidents where police officers used excessive force or discharged their weapon without due cause, however, like servicemen, this isn't the norm, especially when you considering there's more than a million officers in the US.

Why should I care if it is insulting? If he says our military or some other country's army have a bigger chance of do horrendous stuff like that because we/they cant the constitutional oath by heart, why should I not be able to say that American forces are more prone to stuff like that?

After all there seems to be a lot of historical incidents where American soldiers have done horrible war crimes and I probably will not find a single one that can point out a swede or a polish soldier have done. Sure I have not looked but I doubt I find any.

I am not saying all soldiers are bad, but like you said there should be many bad eggs in a force of 1.4milion strong.

Seems it is not worth to have a discussion here, because if I say something like. Psychopaths are more prone to be criminals, I get a reply that I am stating that I call people with mental problems criminals... So taken out of context and so warped...

Lesson learned, USA is holy land with a holy and magical scripture. No one is allowed to criticize anything about USA because it is the Greatest country in the world where everyone live in harmony... And its history is like a fairy tale you tell to you kids when they go to bed...

yes sir, lesson learned.
 
Last edited:
I probably will not find a single one that can point out a swede or a polish soldier have done. Sure I have not looked but I doubt I find any.

I sure as hell hope there aren't any considering Sweden has been neutral since the 1800's. They even sat out for both world wars. :lol:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03/25/poli-m25.html
I tried searching a little for Poland but wound up flooded with something about some holocaust that happened.
 
I sure as hell hope there aren't any considering Sweden has been neutral since the 1800's. They even sat out for both world wars. :lol:
I tried searching a little for Poland but wound up flooded with something about some holocaust that happened.

So it is the polacks that are to blame now. Yeah nice, real nice. I love alternative facts...

I am even surprised you had to google for it, I am a bit scared now.
 
Oh my, here we go again.
I really do not understand what you are about here, your are saying I have ignored to answer something about an oath four times?
I have directly quoted the US Military Oath to you in this thread four times. Every time I have posted it so far, you have ignored it and ignored what it is that means it destroys your argument about troops just blindly following orders - just like you did in the post above.

US soldiers swear to defend the Constitution above all else, from all enemies.
British soldiers, on the other hand, don't even mention the law in their oath, and swear to obey the monarch, the monarch's family and those above them in the chain of command. The Swedish one is, from my recollection, similar.

The difference is that if a superior officer tells a British soldier to shoot civilians, they probably will because they obey orders before all else - but if a superior officer tells a US soldier to shoot civilians, they probably won't because they defend the Constitution before all else.

It is not like we have a pledge we are thought in school to swear fielty to when class begins or something like that.
Americans do. That's why they know the Constitution before they become soldiers and swear to defend it.
How should I know my constitution in detail.
Americans do. That's why they know the Constitution before they become soldiers and swear to defend it.
Every military out there including your own is basically the same, and I am telling you, if they are sent out to pacify an area in a American city they probably would do it without question because it is their orders
The reason I've quoted the oath to you four times is because that is not their way. They swear to defend the Constitution above all else, not to follow orders above all else. The reason you're not getting this is because you just keep ignoring it - and I can only assume deliberately because it's contrary to your ludicrous opinion.

Incidentally, if my army was sent to pacify an American city, something's gone badly wrong. Or we're taking the colony back.

You think the soldiers would know before hand that Trump or their superiors are up to something? They would just get an order to be ready within a short period of time and that is it, not time for thinking about stuff.
No, you're not getting this at all.

They know the Constitution IN SCHOOL. They swear to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION before anything else when they sign up. It doesn't matter who is up to what, or who knows it, if they are told to do something unconstitutional THEY WILL NOT DO IT.

You can only play dumb about this for so long.

The government, supreme court and all that are working for the people are they not? If people wishes something they will without a doubt get their way.
You're not getting this either. The Constitution isn't law for the people. The Constitution is law for government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't give anyone any rights, they bind the government to prevent them from taking them. The will of the people simply doesn't come into changing the Constitution because it's simply not applicable.

Just read it, for pities' sakes.
 
So it is the polacks that are to blame now. Yeah nice, real nice. I love alternative facts...

I meant that if there are any I couldn't find them as they were buried under the thousands of articles about the holocaust (which, whether you like or not, involved Poland). But read it however you want. :rolleyes:
 
Every military out there including your own is basically the same, and I am telling you, if they are sent out to pacify an area in a American city they probably would do it without question because it is their orders and they probably would not know any details or anything because in situations like that
Just so you know (language warning, obviously):


Just because that title scroll says "2017" and got quoted a bunch on tumblr last month doesn't mean it is a documentary on the current American state.
 
Oh my, here we go again.I have directly quoted the US Military Oath to you in this thread four times. Every time I have posted it so far, you have ignored it and ignored what it is that means it destroys your argument about troops just blindly following orders - just like you did in the post above.

US soldiers swear to defend the Constitution above all else, from all enemies.
British soldiers, on the other hand, don't even mention the law in their oath, and swear to obey the monarch, the monarch's family and those above them in the chain of command. The Swedish one is, from my recollection, similar.

The difference is that if a superior officer tells a British soldier to shoot civilians, they probably will because they obey orders before all else - but if a superior officer tells a US soldier to shoot civilians, they probably won't because they defend the Constitution before all else.
Americans do. That's why they know the Constitution before they become soldiers and swear to defend it.Americans do. That's why they know the Constitution before they become soldiers and swear to defend it.
The reason I've quoted the oath to you four times is because that is not their way. They swear to defend the Constitution above all else, not to follow orders above all else. The reason you're not getting this is because you just keep ignoring it - and I can only assume deliberately because it's contrary to your ludicrous opinion.

Incidentally, if my army was sent to pacify an American city, something's gone badly wrong. Or we're taking the colony back.
No, you're not getting this at all.

They know the Constitution IN SCHOOL. They swear to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION before anything else when they sign up. It doesn't matter who is up to what, or who knows it, if they are told to do something unconstitutional THEY WILL NOT DO IT.

You can only play dumb about this for so long.


You're not getting this either. The Constitution isn't law for the people. The Constitution is law for government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't give anyone any rights, they bind the government to prevent them from taking them. The will of the people simply doesn't come into changing the Constitution because it's simply not applicable.

Just read it, for pities' sakes.

Why should an oath prevent them to do a thing like that. What if there is indeed a foreign power involved? You think the soldiers would say like before no way it is American soil? There would probably not be any different preparation either way. Be it an foreign army that suddenly invaded or a terrorist attack or and order to tame wild protesters or a coup d'etat. You get a order and you trust your superior, how and where would you get info that this thing you are doing is indeed a unlawful attempt to bring down the country if it is well planned. If it has happened in other countries it can happen in USA and then the constitution would not be worth more then the paper it is written on. It is not impossible, even in USA. A soldier or any other officer know only what he needs to know.

Do you see mine point?


And why should I even bother to read it? I have other stuff to do like watching Anime, deciding which bike I want to buy for this season trackdays, and if I need more coffee. What good would it do me to read it? Will squad of super models knock on my door and demand I bathe with them?
 
Last edited:
Why should an auth prevent them to do a thing like that.
I presume you mean 'oath'? If so, your question shows you've still not read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights - surprise, surprise.
What if there is indeed a foreign power involved? You think the soldiers would say like before no way it is American soil? There would probably not be any different preparation either way. Be it an foreign army that suddenly invaded or a terrorist attack or and order to tame wild protesters or a coup d'etat. You get a order and you trust your superior, how and where would you get info that this thing you are doing is indeed a unlawful attempt to bring down the country if it is well planned. If it has happened in other countries it can happen in USA and then the constitution would not be worth more then the paper it is written on. It is not impossible, even in USA. A soldier or any other officer know only what he needs to know.

Do you see mine point?
No, because you're refusing to pay any heed to the fact that 'a soldier or any other officer' knows the Constitution long before they become a soldier, and is sworn to defend it above all else - from enemies both foreign and domestic.

You're ignoring this for about the seventh time now, which tells me you're doing it wilfully.
 
I dont understand what I am ignoring? have I not stated my point?
Perhaps you should enlist, then you will se how much you think about the constitution when you are in "heat".
 
I dont understand what I am ignoring? have I not stated my point?
Perhaps you should enlist, then you will se how much you think about the constitution when you are in "heat".

I'm curious now to hear what kind of heat someone in a dormant military has to deal with. :odd:
 
I'm curious now to hear what kind of heat someone in a dormant military has to deal with. :odd:

Proves my point even more in that case...
Would be even more stressfull in a real armed situation.

Like this:
You are shipped out to a place where you have been ambushed, by foreign military a militia or whatever.
Your squad mate shouts: cover me I gotta see how Dan is doing.
Your response: -nah, man I gotta think about the constitution.

Yeah right.
 
Back