What is an Enemy to the US Constitution?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - US Army

"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.)

.... you know, the ACTUAL Oaths at the ACTUAL Army website ...

Jeez, this is too easy.

Wow same one as my OP, great work.

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...

Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.

I concur, I believe these are obvious enemies. But as you said that identification is just the start, why has nothing else been done? Like isn't that the whole point of this military thing?

Just out of curiosity ... what would you like to see "done" against the three million or so odd Americans that are Muslim?

If you concur that Islam is an "enemy of the Constitution" ... do you have a plan in mind?

Are you saying stoning a woman for unsubstantiated claims of adultery is not cruel or unusual, that it is not common practice of sharia law to stone a woman for adultery, that Muslims don't advocate sharia law, or that taking action against people who advocate sharia law would be too mean?

Did I say that? No.

Why don't you note the last time a woman was stoned to death by American Muslims ...

And why don't you answer the question ... what do you want to do to these American Muslims you think are your enemy?

(BTW, may want to read Amendment I before you answer ... )

I do not know when the last time a woman was stoned to death within the US constitutional republic, I imagine it is rare. I do know women are often stoned to death in Muslim dominated countries.

What is your argument again?

Oh my.

I asked you a question. You concurred with a members statement that "Islam" is an enemy of the US Constitution. Perhaps you are unaware that there are about 3.3 MILLION Americans who are Muslim. I wondered how you intend to go after these "enemy" citizens based on their religion ...

You then tried to deflect with nonsense about stoning and Sharia law that you heard on Fox or Rush or something.

The US Constitution PROTECTS the rights of Americans to the religion of their choice. One of those is Islam.

originally posted by: Reigning
What constitutes an enemy to our Constitution?

In terms of that oath, probably somebody making an armed attack.
A "domestic enemy" would be an outright armed rebellion.

Are their any current domestic enemies of the US Constituion?

Are there any armed rebellions currently in existence?

If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath?

Perhaps because they can't respond to an armed attack until an armed attack takes place.

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - US Army

"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.)

.... you know, the ACTUAL Oaths at the ACTUAL Army website ...

Jeez, this is too easy.

Wow same one as my OP, great work.

Being snide doesn't suit you very well.

You may have missed the dialogue here in your thread about the supposed change in the Oath. I see you didn't bother to try to call that garbage out ... /shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, maybe not stoned to death, but can you deny there are "honor" killings?

nypost.com...

The whitewashing of Muslim honor killings in America has seeped into academia. And the PC police have found a new scapegoat: Hindu Americans. In January, the Journal of Family Violence published “An Exploratory Study of Honor Crimes in the United States” by Brittany E. Hayes, Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak. It was an act of cowardice as well as a shoddy piece of research. It broke absolutely no new ground, either theoretically or statistically, and is so “politically correct” that it completely misses an entire forest for a tree.

nypost.com...

The United Nations pegged the number of honor killings worldwide at around 5,000 a year in 2000, although some experts contend that many go unreported. In the US, a study published last year by the Department of Justice quoted research estimating that between 23 and 27 honor killings — around one every two weeks — occur annually in this country. But there are no official statistics.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, maybe not stoned to death, but can you deny there are "honor" killings?

nypost.com...

The whitewashing of Muslim honor killings in America has seeped into academia. And the PC police have found a new scapegoat: Hindu Americans. In January, the Journal of Family Violence published “An Exploratory Study of Honor Crimes in the United States” by Brittany E. Hayes, Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak. It was an act of cowardice as well as a shoddy piece of research. It broke absolutely no new ground, either theoretically or statistically, and is so “politically correct” that it completely misses an entire forest for a tree.

First observation: The New York Post is a tabloid.

Second: People do commit crimes in the name of religion as they do for all sorts of other crazy ideas.

For example: Oklahoma Mother Kills Child with Crucifix - NewsChannel 4 NBC Affiliate

According to court documents, officers arrived at the home and found 33-year-old Geneva Gomez lying on the floor with a large crucifix on her chest. “Blood was visible, and she had suffered severe trauma around her head and face,” the documents state. Geneva was pronounced dead at the scene. Juanita, Geneva’s mother, told investigators Geneva “was possessed by the devil.” Court documents claim she admitted to punching Geneva repeatedly “and forced a crucifix and religious medallion down her throat until blood came out of her daughter’s mouth. Juanita saw her daughter die and then placed her body in the shape of a cross.”

So, yes, I think people use religion as an excuse for all kinds of crazy things.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...

Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.

I concur, I believe these are obvious enemies. But as you said that identification is just the start, why has nothing else been done? Like isn't that the whole point of this military thing?

Just out of curiosity ... what would you like to see "done" against the three million or so odd Americans that are Muslim?

If you concur that Islam is an "enemy of the Constitution" ... do you have a plan in mind?

Are you saying stoning a woman for unsubstantiated claims of adultery is not cruel or unusual, that it is not common practice of sharia law to stone a woman for adultery, that Muslims don't advocate sharia law, or that taking action against people who advocate sharia law would be too mean?

Did I say that? No.

Why don't you note the last time a woman was stoned to death by American Muslims ...

And why don't you answer the question ... what do you want to do to these American Muslims you think are your enemy?

(BTW, may want to read Amendment I before you answer ... )

I do not know when the last time a woman was stoned to death within the US constitutional republic, I imagine it is rare. I do know women are often stoned to death in Muslim dominated countries.

What is your argument again?

Oh my.

I asked you a question. You concurred with a members statement that "Islam" is an enemy of the US Constitution. Perhaps you are unaware that there are about 3.3 MILLION Americans who are Muslim. I wondered how you intend to go after these "enemy" citizens based on their religion ...

You then tried to deflect with nonsense about stoning and Sharia law that you heard on Fox or Rush or something.

The US Constitution PROTECTS the rights of Americans to the religion of their choice. One of those is Islam.

I do not have time for questions I am late for my Children of God meet up. Hope we got some fresh meat today!!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Talk about deflection.
What source would suit you? Or can you just not admit there are honor killings? The men sometimes even admit/brag about it. Nevermind. I see you in all kinds of threads and never admit when you've been proven wrong, so I have no idea why I'm wasting my time.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Reigning
What constitutes an enemy to our Constitution?

In terms of that oath, probably somebody making an armed attack.
A "domestic enemy" would be an outright armed rebellion.

Are their any current domestic enemies of the US Constituion?

Are there any armed rebellions currently in existence?

If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath?

Perhaps because they can't respond to an armed attack until an armed attack takes place.

So pretty much secret detention centers are constitutional?

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Gryphon66

Talk about deflection.
What source would suit you? Or can you just not admit there are honor killings? The men sometimes even admit/brag about it. Nevermind. I see you in all kinds of threads and never admit when you've been proven wrong, so I have no idea why I'm wasting my time.

Really? I JUST stated that individual people do all sorts of crazy things in the name of religion!

Unlike you with your "honor killing" crap, I didn't try to say that all Christians would kill their daughters with a Crucifix just because one mentally disturbed Christian did.

My goodness ... is all you wanted to make a paltry attempt to insult me? LOL ...

You'll need to get your facts straight first.

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Reigning

It means our military will defend our nation, and the constitution that governs it, against any enemy force. And that includes domestic enemy force...an attempted coup or something would be an example of a domestic threat to the Constitution.

I'm puzzled by this though...very odd questions:

Are their any current domestic enemies of the US Constituion? 

If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath? 

If there were a domestic enemy threat that required a military show of force in this country right now, the whole world would probably know it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you know something you'd like to share with the rest of us?

If you are an American citizen living in this country, you are able to enjoy that way of life as a direct result of our military acting in accordance with their oath. They take it very seriously.

That reply would have been alright when I was 13 and CNN told no lies. I think the disconnect is that I do not enjoy having my emails monitored, my assets forfeited, my uranium sold to the highest global fund donor, etc.

CNN has always told lies. They're the media, it's practically a job requirement ffs. If your emails are actually being monitored, it is because you have called attention to yourself somehow.

It could be due to you saying sketchy things like "my uranium sold to the highest global fund donor" on an internet conspiracy forum. You're trying to seem sophisticated and clever, righteous and entitled to your indignation and I get that, really I do.

However, simple common sense would dictate that saying certain terrorist-ish terms to just the right people at just the right time on the internet can get you noticed by people you don't want noticing you.

Have you really been selling uranium? No, of course you haven't, and that's not what you meant. You were trying to sound smart and knowledgeable, but that sentence fragment taken out of context can sound like something else entirely.

But what does any of that drivel have to do with the OP topic? If you want to bemoan how hard life is on you in this horrible, unfair country where nothing is given to you and everything is taken, you should make a thread for that topic instead.

How long ago was age thirteen for you?

Attention Please

This is not the Mud Pit folks, so tone it down a bit. The topic is never each other so knock of the insults or risk a Posting Ban.

Do not reply to this message.

originally posted by: Reigning
So pretty much secret detention centers are constitutional?

I believe the Supreme Court has the responsibility of deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.
It is not the military's place to start deciding for themselves who might be enemies of the constitution and attacking them pre-emptively, any more than they are expected to launch pre-emptive attacks on foreign states perceived as "enemies of the United States".
The obvious intention of the wording is "When the United States comes under attack, we will defend it". The last time this applied to "domestic enemies" was probably 1861-5.

As always, what matters is the intended meaning of the wording.

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Reigning

It means our military will defend our nation, and the constitution that governs it, against any enemy force. And that includes domestic enemy force...an attempted coup or something would be an example of a domestic threat to the Constitution.

I'm puzzled by this though...very odd questions:

Are their any current domestic enemies of the US Constituion? 

If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath? 

If there were a domestic enemy threat that required a military show of force in this country right now, the whole world would probably know it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you know something you'd like to share with the rest of us?

If you are an American citizen living in this country, you are able to enjoy that way of life as a direct result of our military acting in accordance with their oath. They take it very seriously.

That reply would have been alright when I was 13 and CNN told no lies. I think the disconnect is that I do not enjoy having my emails monitored, my assets forfeited, my uranium sold to the highest global fund donor, etc.

CNN has always told lies. They're the media, it's practically a job requirement ffs. If your emails are actually being monitored, it is because you have called attention to yourself somehow.

It could be due to you saying sketchy things like "my uranium sold to the highest global fund donor" on an internet conspiracy forum. You're trying to seem sophisticated and clever, righteous and entitled to your indignation and I get that, really I do.

However, simple common sense would dictate that saying certain terrorist-ish terms to just the right people at just the right time on the internet can get you noticed by people you don't want noticing you.

Have you really been selling uranium? No, of course you haven't, and that's not what you meant. You were trying to sound smart and knowledgeable, but that sentence fragment taken out of context can sound like something else entirely.

But what does any of that drivel have to do with the OP topic? If you want to bemoan how hard life is on you in this horrible, unfair country where nothing is given to you and everything is taken, you should make a thread for that topic instead.

How long ago was age thirteen for you?

I get it. It could be worse. Relish civil asset forfeiture or move. Thank you for your service.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Reigning

It's been changed a tad.

For one thing, I will not recognize this oath that has changed, I'm old school. I made an oath to uphold the constitution. And like any good soldier, I pick my battles carefully. I have no problem actually standing up for the constitution, and meet anyone toe to toe who wants to challenge it. So you ask, why don't you stand up to the government. Well, thats like trying to arrest Escobar. No one wants anything to do with it because there are dire consequences for not just yourself when you go up against something that big alone. Upholding the constitution out in the public is one mission, but upholding the constitution against a corrupt government is another animal all to itself. I guess I'm saying that for me, the biggest domestic enemy against the constitution is the United States Government. Me, as one person can't do anything against them (big gov) as a whole, and if I thought I could, that would be romantically hopeful at best.You would need a literal army of people to stand up against the big brother. If people would just come together for the greater good for once we could make real change. Or we could all sit around, and hope something eventually changes for the better. Remember, hope is not a plan.

LOADED questions. Had to think on this. First off one has to acknowledge the fact that the Constitution is designed for the PEOPLE. Thus the limitations on government. That said, the document is fluid. It changes as society changes (See the 18th Amendment). It has to continue to do so. It wasn't a "steadfast" to be adhered to forever. I would say a domestic enemy of the Constitution is one that doesn't acknowledge ALL PEOPLE under that document. Up to and including the president.

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Reigning

It's been changed a tad.

You would need a literal army of people to stand up against the big brother.

Good thing we've got one of those. We also pay them and have provided them the best logistics in the world. They also swore to do it.

Or, we can do it your way. Which is to have the people who paid for the military and its toys, the untrained people who paid for the military's training and compensated its members, we could have them do it while the military watched. That is also good plan.

You are good person and I'm not taking it out on you, but are you kidding me?

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Reigning
What constitutes an enemy to our Constitution?

In terms of that oath, probably somebody making an armed attack.
A "domestic enemy" would be an outright armed rebellion.

Are their any current domestic enemies of the US Constituion?

Are there any armed rebellions currently in existence?

If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath?

Perhaps because they can't respond to an armed attack until an armed attack takes place.

News flash guy! (or gal)
1) You don't need a weapon, or gun in your hand to be an enemy to the constitution

2) An enemy of the constitution does not have to be an armed rebellion, (I'll get back to that in a second) Most recent attacks on our constitution have been lone wolf type terrorist attacks, movie theater shootings and what have you. Yes those people were armed, but not part of a large rebellion per say. Anyone who is from this country, or foreign who would attack others constitutional rights either by violence or other means on our own soil would be considered a domestic enemy of the constitution. Now, if you want to talk about "Are there any current rebellions in existence. You could look at whats going on at the South border right now, and whats happening in Mexico. I wouldn't be lying if I said there seems to be a good chance of an armed rebellion against the U.S. and constitution down there right now, we could even have cells operating in secret here in the states already. Hell, some even consider different militias to be enemies of the constitution, which, groups like that would be seen as being an armed rebellion.

3) With Military, its always about picking battles, you don't use a 12ga. to kill a fly, that's why the government is so nice to supply our country with things like NSA, DHS, TSA and so on, and so on, even funding right down to the local PD level for military style gear to make us feel like we're safer so we don't do the full blown martial law thing and throw everyone into a panic. We just give it that martial law feel with the steroid fake soldier cops. I do know, that the military has been called out on occasion to help with things of this nature, look at the Boston Bombing for instance, not the greatest clip, but you get what I mean www.wsws.org... Sometimes the long arm of the military does get used for domestic enemies of the constitution

This is actually a really big deal this day and age, and it has to be looked at closely by all. We can't just have 4 word sentence answers, and just sit back and think things like this don't exist down to the most benign looking detail

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...

Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.

I concur, I believe these are obvious enemies. But as you said that identification is just the start, why has nothing else been done? Like isn't that the whole point of this military thing?

Just out of curiosity ... what would you like to see "done" against the three million or so odd Americans that are Muslim?

If you concur that Islam is an "enemy of the Constitution" ... do you have a plan in mind?

For starters ban them from govt service, citing separation of church and State. Their religion incorporates Sharia Law which is incompatible with the Constitution. That means Huma can pack her bags or go work at a grocery store.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Reigning

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...

Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.

I concur, I believe these are obvious enemies. But as you said that identification is just the start, why has nothing else been done? Like isn't that the whole point of this military thing?

Just out of curiosity ... what would you like to see "done" against the three million or so odd Americans that are Muslim?

If you concur that Islam is an "enemy of the Constitution" ... do you have a plan in mind?

Dude is that a fair question? What do you think may happen.....just look at the world around us. Are we to think that america is to pure with it documents and all that anyone could come over here and just totally disregard the thing? Its certainly only a matter of time.