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

[lawfulrevolt]

Makes a helluva lot more sense than all the CON birther stuff they've floated over the years.

Yea, that's kind of a muddy issue. It was distressing to see Col. Terence Lakin deprived of his right to witness and subpoena at court martial by the military judge. The one absolute right a soldier has there is witness and evidence. He had subpoenaed the absolute ultimate records to prove he was not disobeying a lawful order and he was deprived of his right. Military judge Col. Denise R Lind has some explaining to do.

That makes me sick. Soldiers fight for rights, but cannot get them from the military courts over them. Oh man . . deprived of facts that concern us all, with nothing but rhetoric in the social scene opposing it.

http://soldiersforjusticeandpeace.c...denied-ltc-terry-lakin-constitutional-rights/

At this point, the birther issue is gone, WHAT IS UP is with the military courts and constitutional rights that the UCMJ specifically grant in that situation? Are we too stupid to understand simple words?

This is very likely an act of concealing treason. Lakins test was a very high test and the courts failed. Let me repeat that The courts failed and look at the supremes with "citizens united". How much are we going to allow before we simply say with one voice, "we need our first and last right, Article V"?

Citizens need to unify and demand that courts function and file suits in civil courts against usurpers of rights and defend soldiers. All those that have taken the oath must work with citizens who are willing, in defense of the constitution.

 

[rdean]

Since Obama has become president, Republicans have attempted at least 42 constitutional amendments. If you want to protect the constitution, vote Republicans out of office.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

Since Obama has become president, Republicans have attempted at least 42 constitutional amendments. If you want to protect the constitution, vote Republicans out of office.

Generally, sadly it seems, that is a very good overall short term strategy that promises some default success. Sadder yet it looks like the DNC is not really any help in doing that because they don't stand directly for the constitution either, or not too often.

The long term strategy of seeing an Article V convention may essentially re make the republican party so they actually end up standing for the principles of the constitution.

In some ways, I feel an Article V, done properly with needed preparatory amendment, will actually tend to make a "no party system" for awhile. Both main parties are going to go into shock when they start realizing what they've done.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

Soldiers do not have the freedom to defend the Constitution without repercussion.

Need I remind you of Bradley Manning or Daniel Ellsberg?

Ellsberg was not in the military when he released the Pentagon Papers.

Okay. By similar logic, the soldiers inquiry will not create the same problems as did Terence Lakins act. In fact, it is showing the soldier scrupulously folling their oath despite the negative aspects. The oath is similar to an order, but logically, under certain conditions, overides order. It is a statement of intent, which order are supposed to have as well.

What soldiers confront that is difficult with the soldiers inquiry, are social fears.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

I think you might be on to something here. I'm going to do some looking into it and come back after.

I've done a little revision to the second to last paragraph, clarifying what the soldier expects from the military courts.

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

The process is perhaps more in sequence, escalating properly, formally, when unconstitutional government is encountered.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If the angry black man in the first video is active duty, he is in violation of the UCMJ.

If he is no longer active duty, he is entirely in the right. I fricking hate OWS, but as a veteran myself, I respect the hell out of that guy. You could see he got through to the cops and shamed them.

The cops have over-reacted in many situations and it is time someone called them on it, and that guy is just the person to do it.

I often feel the same sense of anger about the handling of the protests. I also well remember after I retired and came home and heard some jackass politicians talking about banning the burning of the flag. These pussies never spent a day in the armed services have no clue what the Constitution and free speech mean.

I wrote my dumbass Congressman about the flag burning amendment under consideration and got back the lamest piece of doubletalking crap I have ever seen. It was carefully crafted to not give away his position on the issue. Coward.

If some commie pinko wants to burn the flag, it would be a REAL bad idea to try that shit around me, but I will kick the teeth in of any authority that tried to arrest him for it.
So bravo to the man in the video. For all I know HE is a commie pinko, but he is dead right on this particular matter of free speech.

Does being an internet tough guy force you to send such mixed messages? A REAL bad idea..............my ass.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

Does being an internet tough guy force you to send such mixed messages? A REAL bad idea..............my ass.

As I've pointed out, the lack of disintction between flags has led to all kinds of misunderstandings. Some take an over defensive position, but at least they take a position defending what they believe, speaking out, and that is basically belief in the constitution. I clarify here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tion-from-a-domestic-enemy-2.html#post4786756

Yup, we need to get past the misinformation, give up on the mixed messages, sort through the info, one issue at a time until we are satisified that "we" actually know what is happening. The emphasis need to rest on being a "we" rather than an "it". Unity.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

Curiously, burning a gold fringed flag, IS defense of the real flag and the constitution. However, such is not as constitutional as legally going after those that think it is okay to fly such flags under color of authority of the constitution.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

Geeeeeeeee, I wonder why most posters here can only see problems? Looks to me like they are using nonsense to avoid and bury solution.

When it is Article V and defining proper methods for soldiers to defend the constitution that is being buried, oooohhh man, this don't look good.