obama just committed political suicide.

[bigrebnc1775]

I could lie about receiving a medal in Afghanistan - it's in the constitution!
US appeals court panel: Law against faking receipt of military medals is unconstitutional - FoxNews.com

Absolutely disgusting.

As a side note, I would like to point out that the marine in the video was actually wrong when he stated that military members have a right to disobey an unlawful order. That is not true, there is no right. It is an outright OBLIGATION. Even to the point that following such orders can get you a prison sentence if the crime was large enough and the violation clear.

Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial (and conviction for premeditated murder) of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison. However, the public outcry in the United States following this very publicized and controversial trial was such that President Nixon granted him clemency. Calley wound up spending 3 1/2 years under house arrest at Fort Benning Georgia, where a federal judge ultimately ordered his release.
To Obey or Not to Obey

a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

To Obey or Not to Obey

 

[Right of Neocon]

The military forced New Orleans to follow the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. You reactionary revolutionaries have the right only if you can pull it off. You won't, and you will be stood against the wall if you try it. The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to obstruct lawful, just government. You can vote against it, but if you raise violence against a constitutionally elected government, you will be cut down. Pure and simple. Think not, think Lincoln.

What the fuck are you talking about? What do you not get about the Military shall not be used as a police force? The Military made sure it would never happen again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please explain to all of us dumbasses what the difference is.... if it is unconstitutional, then its unlawful.

Well, I could go back and google constitutional law I suppose, but I don't need to.
I am reliably informed on this very message board that all sorts of new laws enacted by this government are in fact unconstitutional.
That may or may not be true but they are still law.

Didn't you know that anything Obama does is unconstitutional?

What makes you think it's just about obama?

 

[JakeStarkey]

hmmmmm

 

[JakeStarkey]

The military forced New Orleans to follow the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. You reactionary revolutionaries have the right only if you can pull it off. You won't, and you will be stood against the wall if you try it. The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to obstruct lawful, just government. You can vote against it, but if you raise violence against a constitutionally elected government, you will be cut down. Pure and simple. Think not, think Lincoln.

What the fuck are you talking about? What do you not get about the Military shall not be used as a police force? The Military made sure it would never happen again.

I know the military, I know posse comitatus, and I know what Congress did. You gotta grow up and get over it. Don't ever think you can mess with the military.

 

[JakeStarkey]

gotta stop the hatin. Night all, remember the 80% that unites rather than the 20% that divides us.

 

[idb]

Please explain to all of us dumbasses what the difference is.... if it is unconstitutional, then its unlawful.

Well, I could go back and google constitutional law I suppose, but I don't need to.
I am reliably informed on this very message board that all sorts of new laws enacted by this government are in fact unconstitutional.
That may or may not be true but they are still law.

There are something about America you must realize. We have 8 basic rights that cannot be infringed upon.
The government cannot hinder our voice, or mandate what the press reports, nor can they force religion on us, we also have the right to have our grievances addressed.

The second Amendment is to the point so no need to mention it

We cannot be coerced to house any troops in a time of peace or war but only what the law says.

We cannot be harassed by the law unless they have a search warrant. And to obtain a warrant they must have probable cause.

We cannot be forced to be a witness against himself, nor can we be tryed for the same offense twice

We have a right to a fair and speedy trail juried by our peers.

We have a riht to not be locked up without due process.

And we have a right to tell the federal government to go fuck itself if it steps over it's authority.

But...how do you determine if those basic rights have been infringed upon?
By court interpretration of a law against the constitution.

At the moment smoking dope is unlawful, who's to say that it isn't a constitutional right?

On the other hand, maybe it has, at some time, already been ruled that it isn't a constitutional right and therefore laws prohibiting it are right and proper.
All good.
But, consider in 30 years time that decison could be over-ruled.

Can you see my point...laws are there partly to interpret the constitution, so, because interpretation is required, what is constitutional today may not be tomorrow.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, I could go back and google constitutional law I suppose, but I don't need to.
I am reliably informed on this very message board that all sorts of new laws enacted by this government are in fact unconstitutional.
That may or may not be true but they are still law.

There are something about America you must realize. We have 8 basic rights that cannot be infringed upon.
The government cannot hinder our voice, or mandate what the press reports, nor can they force religion on us, we also have the right to have our grievances addressed.

The second Amendment is to the point so no need to mention it

We cannot be coerced to house any troops in a time of peace or war but only what the law says.

We cannot be harassed by the law unless they have a search warrant. And to obtain a warrant they must have probable cause.

We cannot be forced to be a witness against himself, nor can we be tryed for the same offense twice

We have a right to a fair and speedy trail juried by our peers.

We have a riht to not be locked up without due process.

And we have a right to tell the federal government to go fuck itself if it steps over it's authority.

But...how do you determine if those basic rights have been infringed upon?
By court interpretration of a law against the constitution.

At the moment smoking dope is unlawful, who's to say that it isn't a constitutional right?

On the other hand, maybe it has, at some time, already been ruled that it isn't a constitutional right and therefore laws prohibiting it are right and proper.
All good.
But, consider in 30 years time that decison could be over-ruled.

Can you see my point...laws are there partly to interpret the constitution, so, because interpretation is required, what is constitutional today may not be tomorrow.

What I wrote was part of the bill of rights in my own words. They haven't been changes in 200 and almost 20 years, so we would know if their is a violation of the Constitutional or not.

 

[idb]

There are something about America you must realize. We have 8 basic rights that cannot be infringed upon.
The government cannot hinder our voice, or mandate what the press reports, nor can they force religion on us, we also have the right to have our grievances addressed.

The second Amendment is to the point so no need to mention it

We cannot be coerced to house any troops in a time of peace or war but only what the law says.

We cannot be harassed by the law unless they have a search warrant. And to obtain a warrant they must have probable cause.

We cannot be forced to be a witness against himself, nor can we be tryed for the same offense twice

We have a right to a fair and speedy trail juried by our peers.

We have a riht to not be locked up without due process.

And we have a right to tell the federal government to go fuck itself if it steps over it's authority.

But...how do you determine if those basic rights have been infringed upon?
By court interpretration of a law against the constitution.

At the moment smoking dope is unlawful, who's to say that it isn't a constitutional right?

On the other hand, maybe it has, at some time, already been ruled that it isn't a constitutional right and therefore laws prohibiting it are right and proper.
All good.
But, consider in 30 years time that decison could be over-ruled.

Can you see my point...laws are there partly to interpret the constitution, so, because interpretation is required, what is constitutional today may not be tomorrow.

What I wrote was part of the bill of rights in my own words. They haven't been changes in 200 and almost 20 years, so we would know if their is a violation of the Constitutional or not.

No, but the interpretation has.
Any time you apply one of the amendments to a situation you are interpreting it.
A couple of examples that spring to mind in reading your wording above is what the meaning of 'probable cause' is...or what does 'due process' mean...or even what is meant by 'speedy'?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But...how do you determine if those basic rights have been infringed upon?
By court interpretration of a law against the constitution.

At the moment smoking dope is unlawful, who's to say that it isn't a constitutional right?

On the other hand, maybe it has, at some time, already been ruled that it isn't a constitutional right and therefore laws prohibiting it are right and proper.
All good.
But, consider in 30 years time that decison could be over-ruled.

Can you see my point...laws are there partly to interpret the constitution, so, because interpretation is required, what is constitutional today may not be tomorrow.

What I wrote was part of the bill of rights in my own words. They haven't been changes in 200 and almost 20 years, so we would know if their is a violation of the Constitutional or not.

No, but the interpretation has.
Any time you apply one of the amendments to a situation you are interpreting it.
A couple of examples that spring to mind in reading your wording above is what the meaning of 'probable cause' is...or what does 'due process' mean...or even what is meant by 'speedy'?

'probable cause' means an officer cannot stop you or search you or your belongings without knowledge of an actual crime happening. An example one of my constitutional law instructors used was if you were looking for something the size of a tv you could not look in a night stand drawer and find drugs and arrest the person for having drugs.

'due process' in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons making everybody equal, example you cannot try someone for murder because they said they wanted someone dead.

'speedy' trail means to have an even smooth flow, no unnecessary delays.

 

[idb]

What I wrote was part of the bill of rights in my own words. They haven't been changes in 200 and almost 20 years, so we would know if their is a violation of the Constitutional or not.

No, but the interpretation has.
Any time you apply one of the amendments to a situation you are interpreting it.
A couple of examples that spring to mind in reading your wording above is what the meaning of 'probable cause' is...or what does 'due process' mean...or even what is meant by 'speedy'?

'probable cause' means an officer cannot stop you or search you or your belongings without knowledge of an actual crime happening. An example one of my constitutional law instructors used was if you were looking for something the size of a tv you could not look in a night stand drawer and find drugs and arrest the person for having drugs.

'due process' in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons making everybody equal, example you cannot try someone for murder because they said they wanted someone dead.

'speedy' trail means to have an even smooth flow, no unnecessary delays.

If you look up you might just glimpse my point sailing waaaayyy over your head - it's pretty high though so you probably won't see it.

 

[Right of Neocon]

What the fuck are you talking about? What do you not get about the Military shall not be used as a police force? The Military made sure it would never happen again.

I know the military, I know posse comitatus, and I know what Congress did. You gotta grow up and get over it. Don't ever think you can mess with the military.[/QUOTE]
So you just agreed with the law yet you still think it can be used as a police force? The Military wouldn't be an issue, most members of the military happen to be "Right wing" to begin with and they wouldn't fallow an unlawful order knowing that it affected them as much as any private citizen. Odds are that the Joint Chief's would have him thrown out or even jailed for such an order depending on how detrimental the order was.

 

[Right of Neocon]

But...how do you determine if those basic rights have been infringed upon?
By court interpretration of a law against the constitution.

At the moment smoking dope is unlawful, who's to say that it isn't a constitutional right?

On the other hand, maybe it has, at some time, already been ruled that it isn't a constitutional right and therefore laws prohibiting it are right and proper.
All good.
But, consider in 30 years time that decison could be over-ruled.

Can you see my point...laws are there partly to interpret the constitution, so, because interpretation is required, what is constitutional today may not be tomorrow.

Our rights are specifically stated in our bill of rights. There is no question on what those rights are. Amendments are not interpretation but amendments. They are not the same as you later try to allude to.

Interpretations of the laws are additions of specifics within the bill of rights and the constitution. The smoking dope thing is a matter of the common welfare of the general public since its a mind altering substance which is covered under the law. If they legalize weed its because they are deregulating it, there is nothing that could be found that could deem it a "right". You are free to smoke pot, not free to posses it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Obama appointed full fledged marxist as advisors. And you think this is going to be political suicide?

Please.

 

[Right of Neocon]

Obama appointed full fledged marxist as advisors. And you think this is going to be political suicide?

Please.

Good point! Although, the communist got run out of office. I guess that was a win of sorts. About as much as saving 30 million towards the budget, its a start.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, but the interpretation has.
Any time you apply one of the amendments to a situation you are interpreting it.
A couple of examples that spring to mind in reading your wording above is what the meaning of 'probable cause' is...or what does 'due process' mean...or even what is meant by 'speedy'?

'probable cause' means an officer cannot stop you or search you or your belongings without knowledge of an actual crime happening. An example one of my constitutional law instructors used was if you were looking for something the size of a tv you could not look in a night stand drawer and find drugs and arrest the person for having drugs.

'due process' in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons making everybody equal, example you cannot try someone for murder because they said they wanted someone dead.

'speedy' trail means to have an even smooth flow, no unnecessary delays.

If you look up you might just glimpse my point sailing waaaayyy over your head - it's pretty high though so you probably won't see it.

You're attempt to throw some bullshit and hope it sticks is just plain stupid. What I posted is not above you, how would you know anything about American law if you never had to deal with it? Kind of reminds me, you never ask a person what a filet mignon taste like when all they eat is bologna.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What the fuck are you talking about? What do you not get about the Military shall not be used as a police force? The Military made sure it would never happen again.

I know the military, I know posse comitatus, and I know what Congress did. You gotta grow up and get over it. Don't ever think you can mess with the military.

So you just agreed with the law yet you still think it can be used as a police force? The Military wouldn't be an issue, most members of the military happen to be "Right wing" to begin with and they wouldn't fallow an unlawful order knowing that it affected them as much as any private citizen. Odds are that the Joint Chief's would have him thrown out or even jailed for such an order depending on how detrimental the order was.[/QUOTE]

There's a lot of things jake is confused about. For one thing the government is out number by the little people.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

This episode demonstrates just how dangerously progressive our militay has become, and will follow the leader no matter who that leader happens to be and no matter what has been done to the American people or the Constitutional Republic.... When progressive situational ethics replace the Godly moral code our Republic was founded upon...we have storm troopers instead of patriots.... King George III, and his henchmen continued....

Diana West: Army surgeon's challenge to Obama remains despite guilty plea

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Diana West: Army surgeon's challenge to Obama remains despite guilty plea | Diana West | Columnists | Washington Examiner

Another military officer refuses deployment over birth certificate. | Obama Conspiracy Theories

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

Obama Birth Certificate | Impeach Obama Campaign

 

[JakeStarkey]

What the fuck are you talking about? What do you not get about the Military shall not be used as a police force? The Military made sure it would never happen again.

I know the military, I know posse comitatus, and I know what Congress did. You gotta grow up and get over it. Don't ever think you can mess with the military.

So you just agreed with the law yet you still think it can be used as a police force? The Military wouldn't be an issue, most members of the military happen to be "Right wing" to begin with and they wouldn't fallow an unlawful order knowing that it affected them as much as any private citizen. Odds are that the Joint Chief's would have him thrown out or even jailed for such an order depending on how detrimental the order was.[/QUOTE]

I served faithfully for almost 12 years active duty as army airborne is a variety of assignments. The army personnel will follow their leaders, and they will not tolerate their peers picking which orders are lawful or not. Don't ever think the Army will permit soldiers to pick and choose.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What the fuck are you talking about? What do you not get about the Military shall not be used as a police force? The Military made sure it would never happen again.

I know the military, I know posse comitatus, and I know what Congress did. You gotta grow up and get over it. Don't ever think you can mess with the military.

So you just agreed with the law yet you still think it can be used as a police force? The Military wouldn't be an issue, most members of the military happen to be "Right wing" to begin with and they wouldn't fallow an unlawful order knowing that it affected them as much as any private citizen. Odds are that the Joint Chief's would have him thrown out or even jailed for such an order depending on how detrimental the order was.

I served faithfully for almost 12 years active duty as army airborne is a variety of assignments. The army personnel will follow their leaders, and they will not tolerate their peers picking which orders are lawful or not. Don't ever think the Army will permit soldiers to pick and choose.[/QUOTE]

Jake I also served and know plenty in the military and I know a few LEO's on a personal level I go shooting with them. They will never disarm the people and they will be the one that will do it not the U.S. Military.