So did Lincoln. Don’t they keep comparing him to Lincoln?
While it’s easy to jump on him, I suppose policemen also must be able to fire on citizens - in case of the citizens using deadly force against innocents, for example.
I don’t know the context, so I don’t want to blow it too out of proportion.
http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
why would it be ok to fire on noncitizens but somehow not ok to fire on someone simply for being a american citizen?
if someone breaks into your house, do you ask them if they are a citizen or not?
I am reticant to trust sources when they are “unnamed.” Just as, ‘Syria is arming chemical weapons “intelligence sources” say’. However, I am sure there is a bureaucratic litmus test for many reasons.
Police (at every level) are civilians. That is the difference between police and military firing on civilians. When the military has to do it, according to the Constitution, there must be some kind of insurrection.
But police is still government.
Is there a difference between an army fireteam/platoon and a swat team or a bunch of cops armed with rifles and pistols?
I know that there is a distinctions (training/equipment/etc) but are they all that different?
i think the difference between police and military is where the orders come from and the procedure for it to be lawful and constitutional, but i think both military and police can fire lawfully and constitionaly on usa citizens given correct procedure. if someone thinks defending the constitution is not worth a oath, the person should not seek such a position where they swear to defend what they do not want to defend.
While logically that’s a decent point, practically speaking, and in this case, I’m not sure it’s a very strong one.
For one thing, there is a difference between military and local LEOs. Anyone who doesn’t understand this difference should look it up. For another, even granting an extremely rare circumstance in which the military would supposedly need to open fire on Americans to “support and defend the Constitution”, I find it a bit unnerving that this extremely rare, allegedly absolutely last resort, to a situation that virtually never happens, would be the primary litmus test deciding which military officers stay, and which go.
It would tell me that the man using this litmus test either has nefarious motives, or at the very least, for whatever reason has much more concern about an extremely rare SHTF event than I am comfortable with (considering statistically it would most likely be his administration that brought it about in the first place.) Not to mention, I have a hard time buying this is all simply for the pretense of simply making sure the men are going to defend the Constitution…when the man conducting this litmus test violates his own oath to do the same on virtually an hourly basis.
Posse Comitatus - not that it means much, but this is why - in addition to the Constitutional limitations - it’s supposed to be different.
Note that the military firing on civilians really is always very bad news. The police are bad but the military is worse. At least the police have to file reports when they kill people, etc. but in military action, the killing is invariably indiscriminate and en masse. Don’t for a moment think that domestic military deployment is not an escalation.
Clayton -
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
So almost everyone has broken this oath by not defending the Constitution from politicians of all kinds?
BTW, who was the last POTUS who did NOT violated the Constitution?
not sure what it means to violate the constitution. it’s not like the constition is clear and objective and not open to interpretation.
we have members of each branch that can’t agree on what law is or what is torture. a lot of supreme court decisions are 5/4 or 4/5. we have ron paul say something is torture that violates usa and international law, then the rest of the republican candidates say they think he is wrong and that it is not torture and is legal in usa and international law.
Let’s see… who was before Washington? 
Congratulations. That’s easily one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I have absolute assurance to summarily reject anything and everything you say.
Congratulations. That’s easily one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I have absolute assurance to summarily reject anything and everything you say.
how is that stupid?
there are different interpretations of the constition are there not?
because all supreme court decisions are 9/0 or 0/9
artical on judicial interpretation
thomas and scalia are both originalist’s , yet they don’t vote the same way each time.
http://www.frumforum.com/why-scalia-and-thomas-wont-always-agree/
Who cares about “judicial review.” It’s not even constitutional anyway. Who cares what a few jackasses on the Supreme Court say that the law means this or that. It doesn’t make it so. Words have meaning.
life or death or incarceration can depend on the judgement of judges and jury, moreso than the peice of paper.
the 3rd amendment seems more black and white than the 8th amendment.
words have meaning, but words like “excessive” are still subject to a judgement call. it seems more easy to tell that a soldier is quartered in a house without the consent of the owner in a time of peace, then to determine what is excessive. some of these words are qualitative and not quantatative.
Do you not know what the words cruel and unusual mean?
i know what the words mean, but do you think everyone sees the same thing as cruel and unusual?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment
it says there were court decisions that the death penalty ok, but denationalization not ok.
i’d call incarceration cruel punishment, but that is not how the courts have played out.
Stop citing case law. Who cares.
because government does not involve law.