How Does A Soldier Defend The Constitution From A Domestic Enemy?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by lawfulrevolt, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. lawfulrevolt
    Offline

    lawfulrevolt Lawfulrevolt

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    57
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Ratings:
    +5
    After viewing the "Shamar Thomas speaks to NYPD video",

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys][Orignal full version] 1 Marine vs. 30 Cops (By. J. handy) - YouTube[/ame]

    Then seeing another by Michael Rupert regarding, Shamar Thomas, warriors, honor and right,
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUKeZLeGTDk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL13AA7ADC3EB2E934]A Message to All Police Officers From Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]

    I realized that the soldiers oath and constitutional intent were hand in hand with the citizens allegiance and the use of article V to defend the constitution. A perspective a soldier might have is seen in the "Soldiers Inquiry".

    The below is a draft needing substantial revision no doubt, but the constitutional concepts are sound. This is the realm of the citizen using simple reason. If the republic stands for "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", is it logical the only way a soldier can defend the constitution is to start shooting? No, that cannot ever be constitutional.

    I've listened to a few soldiers talk on this matter, most shake their head and look to the ground, then say there's nothing that can be done. I am a citizen and I understand the constitution, I also understand the structure of legal pleadings some. If something like seeing that a soldier has a legal method to defend the constitution or at least formally and competently inquire if there is a need must be created; and the fact that the UCMJ basically does have laws for that, just as US code has it for citizens and soldiers; use of all those laws needs to be done to defend the constitution immediately.

    Of course anyone who has legal experience might have useful input but I'm mostly interested in the soldiers and veterans thoughts, particularly since congress has been in violation of the constitution for 100 years by failing to call an article 5 convention.

    There is an aspect of social fear when it comes to unifying for actual change in both the civilian world and the military, and it is not constitutional to allow any of it to impair defense of the constitution.


    SOLDIERS APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF INQUIRY INTO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CIVIL AUTHORITY; STATUS ESTABLISHMENT OF LAWFUL MILITARY AUTHORITY.

    This Soldier, acts in obedience of the mandate of the soldiers oath, dutifully to defend the constitution for the United States of America from enemies domestic and foreign in suppression of sedition by legal means to primarily expose then suppress said sedition and to avoid any chance of violation or compromise to the intent of articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
    ARTICLE 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION, 10. Punitive Articles, (a) Any person subject to this chapter who– (3) Failure to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition. (4) Failure to report a mutiny or sedition. Failure to "take all reasonable means to inform" and seeks venue in the Military justice system for binding, legal inquiry regarding what must be violations of,

    ARTICLE 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
    10. Punitive Articles
    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who–
    (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority

    This Soldier States on common knowledge that beginning September 11, 2001, an event after great public deliberation showing to large numbers of citizens, substantial likelihood to be an act of sedition disguised as a terrorist attack, an allegation evidenced to them by the many officially unexplained inconsistencies of common knowledge, following a questionable presidential election in the year 2000; collectively as a part of a much broader basis of evidence than what is stated herein, this soldier can evidence as public common knowledge, and seeks opportunity to present and satisfy with just inquiry; such evidence as citizens hold in confidence as proof of attack upon the constitution; under the oath taken, to satisfy ARTICLE 94, 10.-(a)(3) as a soldier with justification for this application for military inquiry; under the authority and jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    The chain of command this soldier would normally respect without question, is now questioned at the civil level in defense of the constitution to assure lawful military authority. It is shown in common knowledge, and logical that in the case of murder of 2,970 innocent people, that The United States of America suffered a prime obstruction of justice from enemies within, as yet not fully defined but responsible for events well evidenced. These crimes saw intentional deprivation of constitutional due process by unknown and unidentified agents of sedition at the top of the chain of civil command over the United States Military and perhaps influencing the military chain of command compromising its lawful status. This United States Soldier knows and can evidence these acts must include violations of;

    ARTICLE 106a. ESPIONAGE
    (a) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, ........... (3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, a violation of 18 USC CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 1506. Theft or alteration of record, 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations into sedition; or the creation of violence; concealed by misprision of treason; the usurping and overriding of civil authority that ordinarily provides constitutional civil authorization of lawful military authority in command of this Soldier.

    Other recent unconstitutional actions of courts relating to the constitutionality of civil authority indicate that civil judiciary as well as military can be unduly influenced by seditious behaviors, and have failed to follow the Constitution and United States Codes to expose sedition, insurrection and treason compromising the factual constitutionality of civil government.

    Under the priority of a Soldier; and that of democratic control over the republic under the constitution I have taken oath to defend; with consideration that constitutional scholars of the public agree that congress has intentionally mis interpreted article V of the United States Constitution numerous times, this and recent legislation indicate reasonably to this Soldier, a "pattern and practice" of defiance of their oaths of office , which are taken "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;", showing obvious evasion to this soldier and citizens, establishing to a reasonable degree that the chain of command is not under the constitution and has compromised the lawful status of military authority in command of this Soldier.

    This soldier recognizes the US Constitution carries principles, protecting life, therefore, this military court to be Constitutional, must provide a lawful mechanism for this soldiers defense of the constitution from what can be shown as domestic enemies by default as the constitution is diminished and usurpation appears imminent. Therefore, in pursuit of duty and service to my oath in loyalty and fidelity to my constitution, I declare with all conscience and will as a soldier under oath with respect to law of civilian jurisdiction, as well as this application under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that this United States of America Military Division _________ , in order to remain acting "in defense of the constitution" with absolute certainty, must take legal action within the Military Justice System, upwards in command, to civilian levels, to intervene to defend the constitution and citizens rights under it found through their states.

    The loud and desperate pleading of a damaged and threatened citizenry has shown, that their right to free speech is abridged; compelling this soldier to act with all intent of assuring the status of "lawful military authority" in defense of the constitution; invoking the constitution for its own defense, with its own intent, at this initial level through reasonable and logical uses of the military justice system for inquiry and to determine then establish, status as a lawful military authority under a constitutional civil authority. If that constitutionality cannot be fully satisfied, or is inadequate to provide relief in aid of the peoples efforts at petition and redress in defense of the constitution; then act with the product of this inquiry as proof, justifying an order of inquiry and or military demand upon congress to immediately begin to convene a convention to propose amendments under Article V of the 1787 Constitution, for the United States of America, by the legislatures of the states as that constitution defines a duty of congress. This soldier takes this action, pursuant to the intent of the oath taken, to assure a restoration of a constitutional congress and civil authority who can then authorize lawful military authority status in command of this and all Soldiers.

    This request is not be taken as a refusal to follow orders. Orders that tend to impede, intercept, defeat or oppose this soldiers effort to defend the constitution will be noted as such and freely shared with citizens in furthering their defense of the constitution as well as that of all United States of America soldiers. Any undue harassment or prejudice towards this soldier for pursuing performance consistent with the oath taken will be noted, and proper authority, civil or otherwise will be advised.

    Respectfully submitted
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. GuyPinestra
    Offline

    GuyPinestra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +669
    I think you might be on to something here. I'm going to do some looking into it and come back after.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Decepticon
    Offline

    Decepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,138
    Thanks Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +189
    Makes a helluva lot more sense than all the CON birther stuff they've floated over the years.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. lawfulrevolt
    Offline

    lawfulrevolt Lawfulrevolt

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    57
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Ratings:
    +5
    Much appreciated!

    Speaking with vets, hearing their angst about what is happening to government, to our society, really put some pressure on me . . . then I thought of their oath and "domestic enemies". I realized there MUST be away to use law within the military justice system, OR, the military justice system is not following it's oath.

    At that point I realized that it is likely that there is a problem related to the "military industrial complex" that has blocked anyone from even thinking that the military justice system must be responsive and compliant to the soldiers working legally to uphold their oath.

    What I've written on some ways is only lacking venue, and precedent. Form is also certainly wrong. But the essence of it must be okay, and if a soldier were to simply go to his commanding officer and express their concerns and state that there ARE domestic enemies, a true patriot officer/American citizen would probably fell like joining the soldier. He might hand it back and say, "get five more men to file, and I will join you. Our constitution MUST be defended". If the officer refuses, rejects and allows the compromises to the constitution in silence, the court at the base has a clerk who can be asked about venue and form. Or, most bases have a JAG who can be asked.

    I do not recommend that a soldier does this alone however. About 5 enlisted men would be a minimum to even enquire, and they should all be present whenever asking about a process. I do not wish for any soldier to subject themselves to the pressures, ridicule, scrutiny that might be possible, alone.

    Soldiers should know that there is precedent for citizens to file using US code, criminal law regarding concealing treason in, federal civil courts. I am ready to be a plaintiff and guard the back and flank of any soldier that is willing to try this by going after any military authority that blocks them or fails to empower the soldier to expose treason, sedition and espionage. Distance or jurisdiction might be a problem there, so citizens across the states need to be ready to work with soldiers to get this done.

    It is not logical to let the social fears impede the defense of the constitution. Facing an enemy that is armed and ready to kill you cannot be easier, however, the military trains soldiers for that, not using law and their oath for direct, legal defense of the constitution.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2012
  5. Sunshine
    Offline

    Sunshine Trust the pie. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    19,377
    Thanks Received:
    3,036
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +3,045
    Every person who works for the US government has to take the same oath. You might ask the same question regarding all of them.
     
  6. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    I wouldn't blame anyone in the military or considering the military for not wanting to defend this country, period!
     
  7. Valox
    Offline

    Valox Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,023
    Thanks Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +123
    Soldiers do not have the freedom to defend the Constitution without repercussion.

    Need I remind you of Bradley Manning or Daniel Ellsberg?
     
  8. Sunshine
    Offline

    Sunshine Trust the pie. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    19,377
    Thanks Received:
    3,036
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +3,045
    We now have an all volunteer military. It was my generation that didn't want to go to some swamp in southeast Asia and wallow around, and I didn't blame them then at all. They got screwed by the country after they came home and many of them have never been functional since.

    But now, no one has to enlist unless he/she wants to. They have enlisted and many have had multiple deployments so they could earn a living for their families. Now they are being brought home to draw unemployment compensation. I wonder what that will do to Obama's unemploment 'data.' LOL
     
  9. Valox
    Offline

    Valox Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,023
    Thanks Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +123
    Military is not counted in unemployment data.

    Plus, we have not waged a worthy war since WWII, so your appeals to "its voluntary" is not a validation of our FP which has killed many good servicemen.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2012
  10. lawfulrevolt
    Offline

    lawfulrevolt Lawfulrevolt

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    57
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Ratings:
    +5
    Very true. Consider that the soldier, who is asked to fight and perhaps die for the Constitution in its defense, is the front line. Once the soldiers take up the constitutionally peaceful defense, many others will gather in support.

    I do feel that the chain of command has created a lot of social fears in the military about following orders, while ignoring the constitution. This has gone to far and I see yound soldiers really having a hard time with their commitments.

    Then, considering congress has taken the same oath, while also failing to call an Article V convention for the last 100 years, which could have averted tremendous loss of life, strife and economic hardship, mentioned in the inquiry, the soldiers have a right, logically (but not spelled out) to ask all citizens that have taken that oath to help them.

    What is awsome is that Americans can take thisfight into the public arena without fear of criticism. When criticism is found, it is cause to wonder why.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

military code expose domestic enemies