Oath Keepers

[IIFFOFRDB]

I like these guys! http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/07/...anceled-march/

[Guest032516]

Number 5: "We will not obey orders to invade or subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty".

Really? Who wrote this list? COG?

Per Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to call forth the military/militia to execute the Laws of the Union and to suppress insurrections.

So, technically, if the military was ordered to suppress some sovereignty movement in Texas, that would be a LAWFUL order and the military would obey it.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, technically, if the military was ordered to suppress some sovereignty movement in Texas, that would be a LAWFUL order and the military would obey it.

I'll agree with that. based on this portion of text from wikipedia ..

The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people—indeed, regard the expression, "We the people ...". They argued, however, that Henry exaggerated the extent to which a consolidated government was being created and that the states would serve a vital role within the new republic even though their national sovereignty was ending. Tellingly, on the matter of whether states retained a right to unilaterally secede from the United States, the federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessi..._United_States

The article is, as you'd expect, rather long reading. the issue goes back to the very forming of the United States, and of course the Civil War and other attempts to secede. Texas in fact seceded from Mexico, to join the Union. There's a lot to read but this portion seems to make it clear the States, once joined into the Union, do NOT have a Constitutional right to secede.

What i do like about the video is the second amendment, which the Supreme Court has consistently held that individual citizens do have the right to own arms. For all this so-called Militia only talk, Clinton tried that argument and got trounced by the Circuit court in New Orleans.

here is text from a 2008 ruling by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia V Heller ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

Decision

The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.


So what do i take from this?

1) The States do not have a right secede from the Union and if any State attempted it, the Military can be given a LAWFUL order to suppress.

2) Citizens in good standing (i.e. not a felon) do have the right to bear arms. If the Government tried to order the Military to confiscate legally sold guns under current law, it would be an UNLAWFUL order and the Military would refuse.

3) if the Government issued an UNLAWFUL order to the Military that was in violation of the Constitution, the Military would refuse.

What else would the Military do? let's hope we don't have to find out. There has never been a Military coup in the history of the United States .. yet.

I do believe and have faith that if needed the Military WOULD take action against the Government .. to restore the Constitution. And nothing more.

[Whirlaway]

It is Article 1 Section 8 ................not 2.

And the reality of your hypothetical would have so many constitutional issues swirling around that it is impossible to say what the prevailing facts would be in (legal or illegal) order to put down said "insurrection."

It would have to work it's way thru the courts and SCOTUS before anyone can say such an order would be legal and constitutional. Are you psychic to know how some unknown SCOTUS would rule ?

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Per Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to call forth the military/militia to execute the Laws of the Union and to suppress insurrections.

[The_Waco_Kid]

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

spoken like a Lawyer born!

So Whirly, it depends on what your definition of "insurrection" is.

if NY meant to define "insurrection" as secession, NY is right.

If you intend to define "insurrection" as anything other than secession, you might be right, depending on what it is.

i'm sure you are familiar with what Posse Comitatus is yeah? The Federal Government CANNOT order Federal troops into the States to enforce State laws unless asked by the States.

so let's say LA is in riot, which is clearly against the law in CA, (destruction of property, etc etc) and the LAPD and the California National Guard can't handle it, (unlikely but possible) then Federal Troops can't intervene until the Governor of CA asks the Federal Government to act, to restore order.

so in this hypothetical case, Posse Comitatus stands.

in the case that CA tries to secede to Mexico or become the Republic of California (again) then Posse Comitatus does not apply. the act of secession is unconstitutional, and the Federal Government does not have to wait for the Supreme Court or any other Court to rule.

[Whirlaway]

I don't disagree with anything you said...............

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

spoken like a Lawyer born!

So Whirly, it depends on what your definition of "insurrection" is.

if NY meant to define "insurrection" as secession, NY is right.

If you intend to define "insurrection" as anything other than secession, you might be right, depending on what it is.

i'm sure you are familiar with what Posse Comitatus is yeah? The Federal Government CANNOT order Federal troops into the States to enforce State laws unless asked by the States.

so let's say LA is in riot, which is clearly against the law in CA, (destruction of property, etc etc) and the LAPD and the California National Guard can't handle it, (unlikely but possible) then Federal Troops can't intervene until the Governor of CA asks the Federal Government to act, to restore order.

so in this hypothetical case, Posse Comitatus stands.

in the case that CA tries to secede to Mexico or become the Republic of California (again) then Posse Comitatus does not apply. the act of secession is unconstitutional, and the Federal Government does not have to wait for the Supreme Court or any other Court to rule.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I don't disagree with anything you said...............

good for you. not surprised. you made it a hypothetical issue. not me.

do you agree that the Constitution DOES forbid States from seceding from the Union?

that's a yes/no question by the way. made it easier for you to comprehend.

[Whirlaway]

I am not a lawyer; and I have no opinion on the constitutionality.....but as a citizen I think the constitution should allow it; but to my point....put some sharp lawyers to work on the issue and watch how many sides of the coin you get................IMO it is an area of the law that has NOT been thoroughly tested (constitutionally).

Without a set of facts on a specific future case, it is impossible to say what will be.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

do you agree that the Constitution DOES forbid States from seceding from the Union?

that's a yes/no question by the way. made it easier for you to comprehend.

[Jackie S]

We have precedent in the matter of a State wanting to leave the Union.

It is commonly known as "the Civil War".

[IIFFOFRDB]

Nobody is talking about seceding...fuckers

March 3rd, 2009
Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey


standyourground
Orders We Will Not Obey
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” – Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island
Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army – and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”
Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.
Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey
Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.
Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.
Washington at Valley Forge
In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.
We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.
The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.
Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.
The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.
Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.
Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted.
Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.
Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.
mass execution
Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.”NOT on Our Watch!”

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.
Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.
We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord.
Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.
Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
henry
Patrick Henry: “Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!”
Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.
Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.
— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Oath Keepers
The above list is not exhaustive but we do consider them to be clear tripwires – they form our “line in the sand,” and if we receive such orders, we will not obey them. Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh. If you the people decide that you have no recourse, and such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them.
NOTE: please also read our Principles of Our Republic We Are Sworn to Defend
More About Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is a non partisan association of currently serving military, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who will fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and not to any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical. We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bi-partisan. We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. We won’t “just follow orders.” Our motto: “Not on Our Watch!” or to put it even more succinctly, in the words of 101st Airborne Commander General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge, “NUTS!”
There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But many others do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, and understand what that means.
The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers.
We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.
Help us win it.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

We have precedent in the matter of a State wanting to leave the Union.

It is commonly known as "the Civil War".

and it was an unconstitutional act. didn't stop the CSA of course, but doesn't make it a legal act under the Constitution, either. and the Union's response .. they put it down.

and while we are on the subtopic of the Civil War, the Civil War was not about Slavery, it was about States rights, one of which was the right of States to allow Slavery, or not. Some States did outlaw Slavery, the South chose not to.

[IIFFOFRDB]

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/redcoats/

[IIFFOFRDB]

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Number 5: "We will not obey orders to invade or subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty".

Really? Who wrote this list? COG?

Per Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to call forth the military/militia to execute the Laws of the Union and to suppress insurrections.

So, technically, if the military was ordered to suppress some sovereignty movement in Texas, that would be a LAWFUL order and the military would obey it.

I'll stand with COG any day and you...NO WAY IN HELL...

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

We have precedent in the matter of a State wanting to leave the Union.

It is commonly known as "the Civil War".

Everyone forgets about the unsuccessful secession movements in New England in 1814, Massachusetts in particular, and in Indiana in 1862.