Push comes to shove, will U. S. military back Wall Street, POTUS, or American voters?

[Preius]

This is, of course, nothing but a meaningless troll thread started by a predictable, repetitive, mentally impaired asswipe.

Most interesting, I quote the Declaration of Independence word for word and immediately receive accelerated name-calling. Very telling........

The OP of this thread is really quite simple. Is anyone having a problem understanding? Sometimes I tend to get a verbally complex.

Yes the Declaration of Independence did say that we had the right to overthrow the Government. And then the Constitution spelled out how we could legally do that.

The US military will support the US Constitution.

Thank you for your insightful analysis. My sources confirm your information. Your consideration is appreciated.

​

The subject of this thread is,

"Push comes to shove, will U. S. military back Wall Street, POTUS, or American voters?" ​

 

[whitehall]

The Military will always do what the government instructs them to do and the government is controlled by whom? .....The people? The question is whether the people would authorize the government to commit alleged acts against the American people? It has happened in the past but the actions always relied on media support. During the 20th century evidence suggests that the media always supports affronts to the Constitution during democrat administrations.

 

[Caroljo]

My son is a Sgt in the Army, has trained with SF and will be in training for Psy Ops soon. We talked a few months ago about the possibility of something happening which our govt declares martial law. I asked him what he thought the military would do. He said they would follow orders...up to a point. He himself, unless shot at first, would not shoot (to kill) an another American citizen. He said some probably would, but he believes the majority would be there to protect us. A lot depends on the reason for the martial law and what their orders are. Yes, the president is their commander in chief..but that doesn't mean many of them respect that person. He respects the "position' of the president, but that doesn't mean they have to respect the person in that position. They're military - but they're also people and are allowed their opinions.

 

[editec]

If the U. S. found itself in a position like Egypt where the people wanted to exercise the freedom under the Declaration of Independence to 'alter or abolish' America's economic system and remove the influence of money and lobbyists in our Republic do you think the U. S. military would;

1). Take the side of Wall Street.

2). Do whatever the Commander in Chief told them to do.

3). Like Egypt, the military would lean toward change while supporting our existing government.

4). Lean toward change because the gridlock of Wall Street and politics hurts the military also.

5). Other

History shows all of the above have occurred in the past world history. While I do not know, I am aware that there are members here om USMB with strong military backgrounds who might shed some light on the subject. My guess is that U. S. military personnel are suffering along with their fellow citizens, but the military also remembers lessons related to Patton, MacArthur, and Haig, and they also remain loyal to their oaths of service.

I am aware that when politics meets the military it can cause strange problems, but I am only seeking general individual opinions in our anonymous forum, not the policy of the joint chiefs. Though if the joint chiefs have a policy and we are allowed to know it, it would be most welcome.

Please do not associate this question with any anti-American influence.

Things would have to get much MUCH worse than they are before the government openly declares war on the people.

IF things got THAT BAD?

I have every confidence that the military would find it difficult to convince a LOT of soldiers to fire upon the people.

I have absolutely no doubt they'd find a some to do so, however.

No dictatorship in history has ever had difficulty finding some people willing to do horrible things to the people.

 

[Caroljo]

If the U. S. found itself in a position like Egypt where the people wanted to exercise the freedom under the Declaration of Independence to 'alter or abolish' America's economic system and remove the influence of money and lobbyists in our Republic do you think the U. S. military would;

1). Take the side of Wall Street.

2). Do whatever the Commander in Chief told them to do.

3). Like Egypt, the military would lean toward change while supporting our existing government.

4). Lean toward change because the gridlock of Wall Street and politics hurts the military also.

5). Other

History shows all of the above have occurred in the past world history. While I do not know, I am aware that there are members here om USMB with strong military backgrounds who might shed some light on the subject. My guess is that U. S. military personnel are suffering along with their fellow citizens, but the military also remembers lessons related to Patton, MacArthur, and Haig, and they also remain loyal to their oaths of service.

I am aware that when politics meets the military it can cause strange problems, but I am only seeking general individual opinions in our anonymous forum, not the policy of the joint chiefs. Though if the joint chiefs have a policy and we are allowed to know it, it would be most welcome.

Please do not associate this question with any anti-American influence.

Things would have to get much MUCH worse than they are before the government openly declares war on the people.

IF things got THAT BAD?

I have every confidence that the military would find it difficult to convince a LOT of soldiers to fire upon the people.

I have absolutely no doubt they'd find a some to do so, however.

No dictatorship in history has ever had difficulty finding some people willing to do horrible things to the people.

That's also what my son said....there would be some that would go along with all of it, but the majority would have a very hard time obeying those orders!

 

[High_Gravity]

If the U. S. found itself in a position like Egypt where the people wanted to exercise the freedom under the Declaration of Independence to 'alter or abolish' America's economic system and remove the influence of money and lobbyists in our Republic do you think the U. S. military would;

1). Take the side of Wall Street.

2). Do whatever the Commander in Chief told them to do.

3). Like Egypt, the military would lean toward change while supporting our existing government.

4). Lean toward change because the gridlock of Wall Street and politics hurts the military also.

5). Other

History shows all of the above have occurred in the past world history. While I do not know, I am aware that there are members here om USMB with strong military backgrounds who might shed some light on the subject. My guess is that U. S. military personnel are suffering along with their fellow citizens, but the military also remembers lessons related to Patton, MacArthur, and Haig, and they also remain loyal to their oaths of service.

I am aware that when politics meets the military it can cause strange problems, but I am only seeking general individual opinions in our anonymous forum, not the policy of the joint chiefs. Though if the joint chiefs have a policy and we are allowed to know it, it would be most welcome.

Please do not associate this question with any anti-American influence.

When you sign up in the Military your commander in chief is the boss, plus those OWS guys don't know what the fuck they are doing.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Should the President declare himself King or otherwise try to seize control of the government he would become an "enemy of the Constitution" that the military is sworn to oppose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The military has been used when law and order breaks down in American communities.

That is where the military is told to go and how to behave.

 

[Preius]

My son is a Sgt in the Army, has trained with SF and will be in training for Psy Ops soon. We talked a few months ago about the possibility of something happening which our govt declares martial law. I asked him what he thought the military would do. He said they would follow orders...up to a point. He himself, unless shot at first, would not shoot (to kill) an another American citizen. He said some probably would, but he believes the majority would be there to protect us. A lot depends on the reason for the martial law and what their orders are. Yes, the president is their commander in chief..but that doesn't mean many of them respect that person. He respects the "position' of the president, but that doesn't mean they have to respect the person in that position. They're military - but they're also people and are allowed their opinions.

I do not think there is a disagreement here. SFC Ollie says it is a matter for the U. S. Constitution. As you say it would appear the U. S. Constitution provides for some individual disgression at all levels of the military in any specific example. Here is what I found in the U. S. Constitution about the Commander in Chief. Looks like one might have to be an attorney to go much further with this.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments


"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

If this is the section of the U. S. Constitution in question, I do not see a conflict with the passage of the Declaration of Independence where we may "alter or abolish" our form of government. I think both you and SFC Ollie are on the right track, but that is a layman's opinion.

Still looks to me like posters in this thread are hesitant to address the OP.

If the U. S. found itself in a position like Egypt where the people wanted to exercise the freedom under the Declaration of Independence to 'alter or abolish' America's economic system and remove the influence of money and lobbyists in our Republic do you think the U. S. military would;

1). Take the side of Wall Street.

2). Do whatever the Commander in Chief told them to do.

3). Like Egypt, the military would lean toward change while supporting our existing government.

4). Lean toward change because the gridlock of Wall Street and politics hurts the military also.

5). Other

History shows all of the above have occurred in the past world history. While I do not know, I am aware that there are members here om USMB with strong military backgrounds who might shed some light on the subject. My guess is that U. S. military personnel are suffering along with their fellow citizens, but the military also remembers lessons related to Patton, MacArthur, and Haig, and they also remain loyal to their oaths of service.

I am aware that when politics meets the military it can cause strange problems, but I am only seeking general individual opinions in our anonymous forum, not the policy of the joint chiefs. Though if the joint chiefs have a policy and we are allowed to know it, it would be most welcome.

Please do not associate this question with any anti-American influence.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The Declaration of independence (Written by a cousin of my Great great great Grandfather) is little more than a letter telling King George to piss off. The Declaration while a great Historical document does not give us any of our laws. It does not have anything to do with the constitution. This is self evident if you simply understand what the two different documents are and what purpose they both serve.

 

[Preius]

The Declaration of independence (Written by a cousin of my Great great great Grandfather) is little more than a letter telling King George to piss off. The Declaration while a great Historical document does not give us any of our laws. It does not have anything to do with the constitution. This is self evident if you simply understand what the two different documents are and what purpose they both serve.

So, again, you rightly direct us to the importance of the U. S. Constitution in considering the 'alter or abolish' section of the Declaration of Independence. Looks like the real discussion may be at the level of the individual soldier.

For example. I am a soldier stationed near the park in Wall Street. The military command receives orders from President Obama to fire at protestors to disburse the crowd. I may fire my weapon above the heads of the crowd, and the soldier next to me might fire to kill. Both of us would be properly following orders, under the U. S. Constitution?

Anyone who did not fire their weapon could be involved in a violation that would lead to court marshal? This is where I get sketchy on this whole subject, and was one reason for creating this thread.

You are going to move this Dem if you are saying you are related to our second U. S. president, and the founder of the Democratic Party.
Now, that would be especially cool! Thank you for your thoughtful post.​

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes I am related to Thomas Jefferson, He was one of my great great great great Grandfathers Maternal Cousins. The Grandfathers Brother was John Marshall < That is Chief Justice Marshall.......


Now the military will obey a lawful order to fire upon civilians. The key word being lawful. Is it a lawful order to use deadly force upon a peaceful crowd of protesters? I don't think so. Now if those protesters were endangering the troops or others that would be a different story.

The great thing about today though is that we dio not need deadly force to break up a crowd.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoK3ung31eY&feature=related]Angry Mob Zapped by Heat Beam - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

"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 I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

 

[SFC Ollie]

"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 I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Exactly, I have a copy of the top one hanging on my wall..............

 

[Preius]

Yes I am related to Thomas Jefferson, He was one of my great great great great Grandfathers Maternal Cousins. The Grandfathers Brother was John Marshall < That is Chief Justice Marshall.......


Now the military will obey a lawful order to fire upon civilians. The key word being lawful. Is it a lawful order to use deadly force upon a peaceful crowd of protesters? I don't think so. Now if those protesters were endangering the troops or others that would be a different story.

The great thing about today though is that we dio not need deadly force to break up a crowd.

Angry Mob Zapped by Heat Beam - YouTube

Going slightly off-topic here, I think it is neat that you have blood ties to Thomas Jefferson. Detractors of this kind of thinking like to say we are all citizens, we are all equal. Well, I think some, like yourself, are more equal. Your family has an investment and commitment to the United States that goes beyond your U. S. birth certificate. We are oriented to aspire to the greatest values of our heritage. We have all seen on television interviews with our fellow citizens who don't even know how many justices are on the U. S. Supreme Court. Guys like you, and I hope me, are keepers of the American spirit, and while we are building that, illegal aliens are stealing America's wallet! A main reason I intensely dislike illegal aliens is they don't give a damn about what we are trying to accomplish as a country, all they want is the free welfare ride.

Moving on, I recall reading something about this for our border fence. People approach it, and suddenly they are up against 150 degrees or something like that. Sounds efficient.

I am by no means a revolutionary, but like most Americans I am tired of the Wall Street slime raping my country, and frankly I have had enough of both political parties. I think it was Bill Maher who said, "One party has no brains, and the other has no balls."

I am not donating to Obama, the last time they wrote for money, I sent back a note, "I do not donate to Republicans." I am prepared to throw my vote away if Obama does not stop kissing Republican ass. The American Jobs Act is about his last chance with me. There are Dems talking about a primary switch to Hillary Clinton. She is committed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I was for her before I was for Obama.

Stretching the topic. Throughout my life I have heard people say the U. S. Government could overthrown without shedding a drop of blood. The version I heard goes along these lines. Barry, Joe, Michelle, and Joyce are The Administration, all four were elected by the American people. If, (and it would obviously be a set up), Joe Biden says to Barry Obama, "This is a coup, I am now the president, surrender to me." Now President Obama would have to violate his oath of office, BUT with a new government comes a new currency. We buy off China and others at 10 cents on the dollar, and they would be glad to get it. Then the planet makes a start fresh with a new economic system, but basically the same American democracy, probably with new lobbying laws. One interesting idea would be changing currency. If each individual were only allowed $500,000 for changing to new money for old, we would leave the 1% with all kinds of useless paper.

Now, this is 'think tank' type stuff, and really over my level of thought. I am not sure how well I am explaining it here, but it is interesting. Do you think it would be possible to have an orderly revolution of government with no bloodshed?

When I went to college we were taught that the value of a corporation is assets, minus liabilities, plus 'goodwill.'. What do we really need a stock market and speculators for? They produce nothing, and raise prices unnecessarily. Someone wants to buy stock in a company, do it the way we used to. Call the company and ask how much per share. If you like the price, send them a check.

Is all this over-simplistic? I have no idea, but I have found in big business many like to make an issue complex because it is to their financial advantage. I think speculators have bullshitted the American people very effectively.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes I am related to Thomas Jefferson, He was one of my great great great great Grandfathers Maternal Cousins. The Grandfathers Brother was John Marshall < That is Chief Justice Marshall.......


Now the military will obey a lawful order to fire upon civilians. The key word being lawful. Is it a lawful order to use deadly force upon a peaceful crowd of protesters? I don't think so. Now if those protesters were endangering the troops or others that would be a different story.

The great thing about today though is that we dio not need deadly force to break up a crowd.

Angry Mob Zapped by Heat Beam - YouTube

Going slightly off-topic here, I recall reading something about this for our border fence. People approach it, and suddenly they are up against 150 degrees or something like that. Looks efficient also.

I am by no means a revolutionary, but like most Americans I am tired of the Wall Street slime raping my country, and frankly both political parties.

I am not donating to Obama, last time they wrote for money, I sent back a note, "I do not donate to Republicans." I am prepared to throw my vote away if Obama does not stop kissing Republican ass. The American Jobs Act is about his last chance with me. There are Dems talking about a primary and switching to Hillary Clinton. She is committed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Fine, start a thread on how she would fix them.........

 

[Queen]

Yes I am related to Thomas Jefferson, He was one of my great great great great Grandfathers Maternal Cousins. The Grandfathers Brother was John Marshall < That is Chief Justice Marshall.......


Now the military will obey a lawful order to fire upon civilians. The key word being lawful. Is it a lawful order to use deadly force upon a peaceful crowd of protesters? I don't think so. Now if those protesters were endangering the troops or others that would be a different story.

The great thing about today though is that we dio not need deadly force to break up a crowd.

Angry Mob Zapped by Heat Beam - YouTube

Going slightly off-topic here, I recall reading something about this for our border fence. People approach it, and suddenly they are up against 150 degrees or something like that. Looks efficient also.

I am by no means a revolutionary, but like most Americans I am tired of the Wall Street slime raping my country, and frankly both political parties.

I am not donating to Obama, last time they wrote for money, I sent back a note, "I do not donate to Republicans." I am prepared to throw my vote away if Obama does not stop kissing Republican ass. The American Jobs Act is about his last chance with me. There are Dems talking about a primary and switching to Hillary Clinton. She is committed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Republicans have voted down his Jobs bill. Are you blaming Obama for the Republicans number one policy to make sure he fails?

 

[Divine Wind]

The OWS movement is a bunch of spoiled people that think the Government owes them something. The military would not support it and if they begin active rebellion would put them down.

A lot of Middle Class Americans are among them. Additionally, the Tea Party and the OWC have a lot in common. I seriously doubt our American service personnel would be as anxious to shoot down family members like the National Guard at Kent State. Besides, there's all that Posse Comitatus stuff and DOD regs to deal with.

Column: 'Occupy' is anger and noise, but no solutions

Bob: I have to say, I'm puzzled by the angry reaction of Tea Party types toward the Wall Street protesters, and vice versa. They come across as enemies, but they're essentially angry over the same things. Government fraud and abuse?
Cal: Check.
Bob: Big bankers on Wall Street who contributed mightily to the housing collapse before being bailed out with taxpayer money?
Cal: Check.
Bob: Crony-capitalism, in which government feeds business, which feeds government?
Cal: Check.
Bob: Lobbyists feeding that Washington machine?
Cal: Check.
Bob: Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve?
Cal: Check.

Will Occupy Wall Street alienate the middle of the country? It hasn&rsquo;t yet. - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


Poll: 43 percent agree with views of "Occupy Wall Street" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats voted down the jobs bill, but who wants to mess it all up with the truth.

 

[Preius]

Yes I am related to Thomas Jefferson, He was one of my great great great great Grandfathers Maternal Cousins. The Grandfathers Brother was John Marshall < That is Chief Justice Marshall.......


Now the military will obey a lawful order to fire upon civilians. The key word being lawful. Is it a lawful order to use deadly force upon a peaceful crowd of protesters? I don't think so. Now if those protesters were endangering the troops or others that would be a different story.

The great thing about today though is that we dio not need deadly force to break up a crowd.

Angry Mob Zapped by Heat Beam - YouTube

Going slightly off-topic here, I recall reading something about this for our border fence. People approach it, and suddenly they are up against 150 degrees or something like that. Looks efficient also.

I am by no means a revolutionary, but like most Americans I am tired of the Wall Street slime raping my country, and frankly both political parties.

I am not donating to Obama, last time they wrote for money, I sent back a note, "I do not donate to Republicans." I am prepared to throw my vote away if Obama does not stop kissing Republican ass. The American Jobs Act is about his last chance with me. There are Dems talking about a primary and switching to Hillary Clinton. She is committed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Fine, start a thread on how she would fix them.........

Really no need for a thread. Just go back to the old Democratic approach to handling Republicans. Tell them, "No, you are not cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, and to pay for it we are going to soak the wealthy."

That worked almost 80 years until Obama decided to play poker with the Big 3 entitlements. Hillary will stand her ground as a Dem, - New Dealer, New Frontier, and Great Society. Just keep sending out the checks to the people. WTF, write an Executive Order.

Republicans have all these high priced accountants, let them figure out the implementation and balancing the budget. If they can't do it, fire them, and get someone who can - it is only paper pushing.

I know you will hate this, but the closer America gets to bankruptcy the sooner we will have progressive economic change. Democrats used to keep Republicans scared up until Barry AIG Obama sold us out.