Are soldiers really serving their country?

I never served; but yes, a sitting President retains his authority as CiC until his term expires, or until his resignation or impeachment.

 

No, what you are really doing is setting up a type of question that can't be answered unless we all share your viewpoint.

And since most of us apparently do not share it, no answers will be acceptable. We are speaking 2 different languages, without a commonly acceptable framework. That is why I have pretty much ignored it.

You are taking a personal choice that many of us have made for reasons that are our own, and trying to make it a political question. Well, I am sorry Mr. Anarchist, but to almost all of us, the choice to join the military has not a single thing to do with politics. In fact, to most of those in the military politics are something we think very little about.

Sorry to burst your bubble. You would be surprised I bet how ignorant most people are in the military about politics and political theory. To many of them, Marx is an old comedian, and Lennon is an assasinated singer. They could not tell you the differences between Das Kommunistische Manifest and Mein Kampf. And they could not tell you the differences between National Socialism and International Socialism.

 

That is where the term "lawfull order" comes into play. If an order is not lawfull, you are not only obligated, but required to refuse it.

But get off "unconstitutional", that has nothing to do with it. The Constitution is not the law, but the legal framework. As to an order being "Constitutional", that is not the pervue of either the military, or law enforcement. We deal with laws themselves. When it comes to determining if something is Constitutional, that is only the pervue of the US Supreme Court.

And unless the Supreme Court determins that a law is Constitutional or not, it is considered to be so until such a judgement is rendered. You really need to stop trying to make this more complex then it is. It is no more my right or ability to determine if an order is "Constitutional" then it is my right as a civilian to determine if a law is "Constitutional". I do not believe that a law requiring me to wear clothes is Constitutional because it violates my right to free expression. So if I walk down the street nude, does that mean I will not be arrested? Of course not. And if my defense is "This is not Constitutional", that does not matter, I will still get convicted.

"Constitutionality" only comes into play in cases like this on appeal, if the Supreme Court decides after the fact that it was not Constitutional.

 

When I think about the millions of civil victims of the allied air raids on Germany and Japan, your statement sounds like scorn to me.

Lies? Does this picture lie?

 

And who is the one that did all that damage?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-28/world/libya.war_1_ras-ajdir-rebels-moammar-gadhafi?_s=PM:WORLD

Government shelling of the seaside town of Misrata resumed Thursday afternoon, with heavy artillery and mortars targeting residential areas, killing 10 people, a member of the medical committee of the Misrata Council told CNN.

You must have some major short-term memory issues. Because I am sure that most of us remember that the damage and destruction in Misrata was done by the Gadhafi Government forces. You know, the bad guys that the rebels were fighting against.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-18/...n-rebel-stronghold-gadhafi-regime?_s=PM:WORLD

The nightmare in Libya's war-torn city of Misrata intensified Monday amid more shelling on the city and desperate measures to get medical care, an opposition spokesman said.

"The aid coming from outside is not enough. There is no hospital," said the spokesman, who wanted to be identified only as "Mohammed" for safety reasons.

He said 23 people were killed and 104 were injured in shelling Sunday in Misrata. Another person was killed and nine were injured Monday, Mohammed said.

"The shelling and destruction by Gadhafi's forces has not stopped since yesterday," he said. "They are shelling mortar shells, cluster bombs and splinter mortar shells. The splinter mortar shells explode and throw lethal shrapnel, which has caused most of the tragedies."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4336031.../gadhafi-forces-kill-rebels-misrata-shelling/

Libyan government forces pounded the outskirts of the rebel-held city of Misrata on Friday, killing at least 22 people, a hospital physician said.

So while this looks nice, you are actually making our point even stronger. Because if you think about the victims of Germany and Japan, then you must also think of the victims of Misrata, who were terrorized by the very government that we fought to put down.

Thank you for supporting our claim though, it is appreciated.

 

While the value of the distinction strikes me as dubious at best, the underlined claim is dead wrong, as the supremacy clause makes perfectly clear.

Not really. The contrary precedent was set by Lincoln when he ignored Ex parte Merryman; and while that was not a SC ruling, from Lincoln's perspective it represented the voice of the Judiciary nonetheless, since he didn't bother to appeal it.

Not a good comparison, since most civilians are not under a constitutional oath.

You betcher sweet bippy it is - and it's directed exclusively at those who vilify us for doing what we believed in good faith was necessary to win a war that had to be won.

Hope that clears up any confusion.