Revolt

[williepete]

"...who makes the decision, the leader of some militia?"

The court. You can be found guilty for obeying an illegal order just as you can be found guilty for disobeying a legal order.

You may find this article interesting:
To Obey or Not to Obey Military Orders

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh please, we have representative government. Try convincing others to side with you rather than speaking of such silliness as 'revolt' damn misfits never advocate getting involved, only tearing down

 

[9thIDdoc]

Throwing tyrants out of the government isn't "getting involved"? Don't see how you could get more involved than that. It was also tje solution advocated by the FF. Or were you being deliberately silly?

 

[jasonnfree]

"...who makes the decision, the leader of some militia?"

The court. You can be found guilty for obeying an illegal order just as you can be found guilty for disobeying a legal order.

You may find this article interesting:
To Obey or Not to Obey Military Orders

But the militia is not military and this linked to military. I don't see an overthrow ever happening in a large country like this where nobody is starving and we still have a pretty decent justice system. Even in hard times like the depression during the veterans marched on Washington trying to get their WW1 bonus money. The Army fired on them and the veterans finally gave up and went home. Maybe after a complete meltdown of our economic system and a police state, then anything may happen. Military overthrows and revolutions usually happen in third world countries, correct?

 

[regent]

"...who makes the decision, the leader of some militia?"

The court. You can be found guilty for obeying an illegal order just as you can be found guilty for disobeying a legal order.

You may find this article interesting:
To Obey or Not to Obey Military Orders

But the militia is not military and this linked to military. I don't see an overthrow ever happening in a large country like this where nobody is starving and we still have a pretty decent justice system. Even in hard times like the depression during the veterans marched on Washington trying to get their WW1 bonus money. The Army fired on them and the veterans finally gave up and went home. Maybe after a complete meltdown of our economic system and a police state, then anything may happen. Military overthrows and revolutions usually happen in third world countries, correct?

Actually the bonus army returned after FDR was elected, but this time FDR, instead of sending MacArthur to shoot some vets, sent Eleanor down to talk to the vets and all remained quiet.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Was wondering, and you know this will one day happen.
When there finally is a revolt in the USA who will the military stand with.
Right now I do not think they all would stand with Obama--I know several in service now that absolutely have no respect for him and would have a hard time standing with Obama.

Most can't wait for this administration to be over. As bad as many of us think he is there will one day be someone worse. 50 year 100 years or 500 years like predicting doom and gloom with the climate sooner or later it happens.

The military would only ever side with a revolt if THEY were given an illegal order from the White House.They won't overthrow the POTUS simply for disagreeing with his politics.

 

[Spare_change]

Old man now Vietnam Vet--67-68 Joined as was raised my country right or wrong.
But as I swore to defend my country against all enemies both foreign and domestic--kind of glad I'm old man as taking up arms against domestic enemies seems to be closer now than any other time in my lifetime.
Point is do others believe a revolt will (not now) be in the future or will the USA be able to be the once great nation I remember.

Do you remember what our country was like in 67-68?

Did you want to take up arms against your country?

Yes and 67 68 we were more united than today but as I remember before that say 58 is the era that we need to think re kindling.
Country's enemy Yes. But Domestic enemy is more difficult to recognize.


That's the point we wasted time fighting the COMMIES and maybe we should have been spending more resources fighting the domestic enemies.

I took up arms fighting the foreign enemy--I would take up arms to fight the domestic enemy
that some day might be needed.
Would you not take up arms to fight the domestic enemy's if needed??

In the 50s and 60s we had terrorists bombing schools and churches. Lynching, arson, intimidation. We had state sponsored tyranny looking the other way as terrorists ran rampant.

Yet you look longingly back to that time and whine that we need to rise up against the government for.....ready?.....I'm serious here.......forcing people to get healthcare

What a joke .... how are we supposed to rebut stupidity?

 

[Spare_change]

Was wondering, and you know this will one day happen.
When there finally is a revolt in the USA who will the military stand with.
Right now I do not think they all would stand with Obama--I know several in service now that absolutely have no respect for him and would have a hard time standing with Obama.

Most can't wait for this administration to be over. As bad as many of us think he is there will one day be someone worse. 50 year 100 years or 500 years like predicting doom and gloom with the climate sooner or later it happens.

The military would only ever side with a revolt if THEY were given an illegal order from the White House.They won't overthrow the POTUS simply for disagreeing with his politics.

But, the question becomes, who would feel that an order to fire on our own citizens is a legal or illegal order? Tough call ....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Was wondering, and you know this will one day happen.
When there finally is a revolt in the USA who will the military stand with.
Right now I do not think they all would stand with Obama--I know several in service now that absolutely have no respect for him and would have a hard time standing with Obama.

Most can't wait for this administration to be over. As bad as many of us think he is there will one day be someone worse. 50 year 100 years or 500 years like predicting doom and gloom with the climate sooner or later it happens.

The military would only ever side with a revolt if THEY were given an illegal order from the White House.They won't overthrow the POTUS simply for disagreeing with his politics.

But, the question becomes, who would feel that an order to fire on our own citizens is a legal or illegal order? Tough call ....

No, it's not a tough call.

If the military is asked to act in a police capacity within the continental US, that order is illegal PERIOD (UNLESS the COTUS has been suspended, which is an unlikely event)

Now, there are certain units which are technically speaking exempt from Posse Commitautus, but as a general rule, most military leaders would not EVER accept an order to fire on US citizens in this country.

 

[Spare_change]

Was wondering, and you know this will one day happen.
When there finally is a revolt in the USA who will the military stand with.
Right now I do not think they all would stand with Obama--I know several in service now that absolutely have no respect for him and would have a hard time standing with Obama.

Most can't wait for this administration to be over. As bad as many of us think he is there will one day be someone worse. 50 year 100 years or 500 years like predicting doom and gloom with the climate sooner or later it happens.

The military would only ever side with a revolt if THEY were given an illegal order from the White House.They won't overthrow the POTUS simply for disagreeing with his politics.

But, the question becomes, who would feel that an order to fire on our own citizens is a legal or illegal order? Tough call ....

No, it's not a tough call.

If the military is asked to act in a police capacity within the continental US, that order is illegal PERIOD (UNLESS the COTUS has been suspended, which is an unlikely event)

Now, there are certain units which are technically speaking exempt from Posse Commitautus, but as a general rule, most military leaders would not EVER accept an order to fire on US citizens in this country.

Unfortunately, during a state of martial law .... which, undoubtedly would be the first step the government would take ... it becomes a legal order (unless you can make the case that the reasons for the order make it illegal).

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Was wondering, and you know this will one day happen.
When there finally is a revolt in the USA who will the military stand with.
Right now I do not think they all would stand with Obama--I know several in service now that absolutely have no respect for him and would have a hard time standing with Obama.

Most can't wait for this administration to be over. As bad as many of us think he is there will one day be someone worse. 50 year 100 years or 500 years like predicting doom and gloom with the climate sooner or later it happens.

The military would only ever side with a revolt if THEY were given an illegal order from the White House.They won't overthrow the POTUS simply for disagreeing with his politics.

But, the question becomes, who would feel that an order to fire on our own citizens is a legal or illegal order? Tough call ....

No, it's not a tough call.

If the military is asked to act in a police capacity within the continental US, that order is illegal PERIOD (UNLESS the COTUS has been suspended, which is an unlikely event)

Now, there are certain units which are technically speaking exempt from Posse Commitautus, but as a general rule, most military leaders would not EVER accept an order to fire on US citizens in this country.

Unfortunately, during a state of martial law .... which, undoubtedly would be the first step the government would take ... it becomes a legal order (unless you can make the case that the reasons for the order make it illegal).

I would argue that a state of martial law means NOTHING if the military isn't behind you, and no I don't think the military would ever allow itself to be used that way.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"...who makes the decision, the leader of some militia?"

The court. You can be found guilty for obeying an illegal order just as you can be found guilty for disobeying a legal order.

You may find this article interesting:
To Obey or Not to Obey Military Orders

But the militia is not military and this linked to military. I don't see an overthrow ever happening in a large country like this where nobody is starving and we still have a pretty decent justice system. Even in hard times like the depression during the veterans marched on Washington trying to get their WW1 bonus money. The Army fired on them and the veterans finally gave up and went home. Maybe after a complete meltdown of our economic system and a police state, then anything may happen. Military overthrows and revolutions usually happen in third world countries, correct?

Really? Then how would you account for the American Revolution or "Civil" War?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The military would only ever side with a revolt if THEY were given an illegal order from the White House.They won't overthrow the POTUS simply for disagreeing with his politics

You're dreaming. Again: the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution; not the President. The President can become a domestic enemy the same as anyone else.

 

[regent]

The military would only ever side with a revolt if THEY were given an illegal order from the White House.They won't overthrow the POTUS simply for disagreeing with his politics

You're dreaming. Again: the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution; not the President. The President can become a domestic enemy the same as anyone else.

I don't think the average military person is capable or endowed with deciding most Constitutional issues. In fact, are we posters capable of correct Constitutional decisions? Seems America has had many disagreements over many issues without a revolt.
For those problems with government we have elections, impeachments, a Supreme Court, and a congress. What in the Constitution sanctions revolts? Why can't the Republican party offer conservatives a party platform that conservatives want and the American people vote on it?

 

[jasonnfree]

"...who makes the decision, the leader of some militia?"

The court. You can be found guilty for obeying an illegal order just as you can be found guilty for disobeying a legal order.

You may find this article interesting:
To Obey or Not to Obey Military Orders

But the militia is not military and this linked to military. I don't see an overthrow ever happening in a large country like this where nobody is starving and we still have a pretty decent justice system. Even in hard times like the depression during the veterans marched on Washington trying to get their WW1 bonus money. The Army fired on them and the veterans finally gave up and went home. Maybe after a complete meltdown of our economic system and a police state, then anything may happen. Military overthrows and revolutions usually happen in third world countries, correct?

Really? Then how would you account for the American Revolution or "Civil" War?

Best answer I'd have is that this country was not a modern industrial nation like it is today, which I used as a prerequisite in my post. Also back then, the issue that brought the patriots into rebellion was rebelling over a corporation driving little merchants out of business (East India Company). Today the so called patriots (tea partiers and right wingers) stick up for the corporations every chance they get, and lambaste anyone who criticizes them or multibillionaires.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I don't think the average military person is capable or endowed with deciding most Constitutional issues. In fact, are we posters capable of correct Constitutional decisions? Seems America has had many disagreements over many issues without a revolt.
For those problems with government we have elections, impeachments, a Supreme Court, and a congress. What in the Constitution sanctions revolts? Why can't the Republican party offer conservatives a party platform that conservatives want and the American people vote on it?

And I think your grasp of history sucks. Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Revolting (pun intended). There would be no point in having a Constitution if The People were not intended to be the final check in a system of checks and balences. And it must be remembered that the courts are a part of government and therefore as subject to corruption as any other branch.
You think individuals are too stupid to read and understand the Constitution but are smart enough to make wise decisions when voting? I like to hope you're wrong.

 

[regent]

I don't think the average military person is capable or endowed with deciding most Constitutional issues. In fact, are we posters capable of correct Constitutional decisions? Seems America has had many disagreements over many issues without a revolt.
For those problems with government we have elections, impeachments, a Supreme Court, and a congress. What in the Constitution sanctions revolts? Why can't the Republican party offer conservatives a party platform that conservatives want and the American people vote on it?

And I think your grasp of history sucks. Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Revolting (pun intended). There would be no point in having a Constitution if The People were not intended to be the final check in a system of checks and balences. And it must be remembered that the courts are a part of government and therefore as subject to corruption as any other branch.
You think individuals are too stupid to read and understand the Constitution but are smart enough to make wise decisions when voting? I like to hope you're wrong.

The Declaration of Independence is not a law, but was a form of propaganda when written. What was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence?
I don't know if individuals are too stupid to read and understand the Constitution, but do they? Might look at the results of simple citizenship tests asking for the name of the vice president. When did people become part of the Constitution's checks and balances?

 

[jasonnfree]

I don't think the average military person is capable or endowed with deciding most Constitutional issues. In fact, are we posters capable of correct Constitutional decisions? Seems America has had many disagreements over many issues without a revolt.
For those problems with government we have elections, impeachments, a Supreme Court, and a congress. What in the Constitution sanctions revolts? Why can't the Republican party offer conservatives a party platform that conservatives want and the American people vote on it?

And I think your grasp of history sucks. Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Revolting (pun intended). There would be no point in having a Constitution if The People were not intended to be the final check in a system of checks and balences. And it must be remembered that the courts are a part of government and therefore as subject to corruption as any other branch.
You think individuals are too stupid to read and understand the Constitution but are smart enough to make wise decisions when voting? I like to hope you're wrong.

The Declaration of Independence is not a law, but was a form of propaganda when written. What was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence?
I don't know if individuals are too stupid to read and understand the Constitution, but do they? Might look at the results of simple citizenship tests asking for the name of the vice president. When did people become part of the Constitution's checks and balances?

I've noticed some people getting the Declaration confused with the Constitution also. Must be the younger generation on this board not getting this in school and depending on the radio and tv for their info. I had to hand write the Constitution, Declaration of Independence etc. all out in 7th grade, which was 1957. No typing allowed either, although most of us didn't have typewriters anyway.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Declaration of Independence is not a law, but was a form of propaganda when written. What was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence?
I don't know if individuals are too stupid to read and understand the Constitution, but do they? Might look at the results of simple citizenship tests asking for the name of the vice president. When did people become part of the Constitution's checks and balances

The Declaration of Independence was exactly what it said it was. It declared that the American people would no long be governed by the Crown (a nice way to say "revolt"-which is why it is known as the American Revolution) and set forth reasons for taking such action. From the text:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

I believe the above makes it very clear what the FF thought the proper relationship of government to the people it governs.

 

[regent]

The Declaration of Independence is not a law, but was a form of propaganda when written. What was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence?
I don't know if individuals are too stupid to read and understand the Constitution, but do they? Might look at the results of simple citizenship tests asking for the name of the vice president. When did people become part of the Constitution's checks and balances