I recently saw Gen Millet stating exactly that the Constitution is the point of allegiance, NOT POTUS, or his/her Vice /substitute.Regarding your comments regarding chain of command.....I see you're from Idaho. Not sure what part of the state you're in, but perhaps you're familiar with the INEL. The government nuclear power site some 50 miles west of Idaho Falls. I worked there, quite closely with the navy. I was a civilian but I attended the Naval Nuclear Power School which was at the time in Orlando, Fl. After graduation I then went to the INEL for in plant qualifications at the Naval Reactors Facility. You can Google that if you wish to learn more about it. I mention this only to make you understand that while I was never in the service and won't pretend like I was, I did learn something about giving, taking and executing orders when operating a nuclear power plant. Failure to do so can result in some serious consequences as I'm sure you can imagine. So I take that quite seriously along with the chain of command.
That said, this is the first time I've ever been accused of having a "woke" idea, I must disagree however. @Red Leg touches on this in his last post. But for the sake of discussion presume the so called intelligence that the US was going to attack China preemptively was true. If that is the case, then that certainly comes under the heading of declaring a war.
Now certainly a President needs to have some latitude in the execution of his office and defending the country in the event it is attacked and not have to go to Congress for permission. But this wasn't the case in January of 2021. China had not attacked the US nor do I know of any plans they had in place to do so at that time.
Now the last I looked, only Congress has the ability to declare war. There's a reason for this. We elect a President, not a king or dictator (though some act as if they are). This part of the Constitution was intended in my opinion to hold a President accountable. It's a counterweight to prevent the POTUS from unilaterally engaging in war. A balance to prevent unnecessary loss of life and treasure. I think that was a wise decision by the framers of the constitution.
So any order from Trump to attack China would've been in violation of the Constitution and it would've been an illegal order since Congress had not approved. And you can be certain Trump knew if he had sought Congressional approval at that time for a declaration of war on China he certainly would have not received it.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"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."
Those are the two oaths that the POTUS and a military officer take when they're swore in. Both contain the words "defend the Constitution" as you can see. I would argue that if Trump ordered an attack on China without Congressional approval that he was not preserving, protect or defending the Constitution and would've been in violation of it.
Similarly I would argue that if Milley had rejected that order he would've been therefore within his oath of supporting and defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. I don't see following the Constitution as being a "woke" or "leftist" paradigm.
Regarding Biden / Russia / Ukraine / China / N Korea and nuclear weapons, this is certainly a precarious position. A position that requires sober and serious thought prior to taking any actions, free from emotional outbursts. Prior to any preemptive strikes and a tacit declaration of war by the POTUS, the Constitution should be followed. Again the POTUS must have a degree of latitude to do what is necessary to defend the country in the event it is attacked. And no, I don't think anyone in the chain of command should be allowed to simply ignore commands just because they feel something isn't right.
But the scenario of the POTUS acting in defense of the country was not the situation in January, 2021.
"By default we were saying the correct path was to not follow orders. It would've taken great courage to not follow those orders and of course opened themselves up to the same accusations of being traitors".I can't say I entirely disagree with you here. But I'm not so much excusing his behavior near as much as I'm saying that I'm ok with it in respect to this issue on China if he in fact played a role in preventing a disastrous situation. Can you imagine what the situation would've been like if war broke out at that time with China?
We did not excuse German soldiers who claimed they were just following orders for their roles in murdering millions of Jews. By default we were saying the correct path was to not follow orders. It would've taken great courage to not follow those orders and of course opened themselves up to the same accusations of being traitors.
The US constitution never explicitly mentions God or Divine.
They must be rolling in their graves.
question for insiders:
Will that really happen in CA?
Much has been made of the Duchess of Sussex’s political ambitions since her and husband Prince Harry relocated to California after Megxitwww.gbnews.com
Pretty accurate as well. I personally am less moved by the "good and evil" argument as I am the demands of our national interests, but his fundamental point is exactly correct. Funding for border security and for Ukraine are not a zero sum budget decision. Never has been. But, it is a narrative that has been successfully sold to a growing portion of the republican electorate.Interesting
You are confusing the concept of separation of church and state with a completely different concept that the Constitution was indeed formed based on Judeo-Christian values. Both of these concepts were considered by the founders in the drafting of the Constitution. They were not mutually exclusive...
The quotes you offered by some of the founders are often misunderstood when not expressed in their proper context. In particular, Jefferson's reference to the separation of church and state in his letter to the Danbury Baptists was meant to establish that he believed the state should refrain from interfering with the church, but not that the church has no place in the affairs of the state especially in regard to the establishment of any laws and government created to reflect Judeo-Christain values and morality.
The Adams quote you reference was also taken out of context from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. The remainder of the quote in its entirety is as follows:
"....as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
In its entirety, which we can now understand that Adams was simply reenforcing the concept that freedom of religion shall not be a pretext for political discord. I have listed a few more Adams quotes which seem to affirm his true opinions of the role of God and religion in the creation of the Republic...
"The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society."
Strong words for someone from Illinois/Wisconsin.Was this rhetorical, or serious?
I started typing California, Oregon, Washington but then thought I misunderstood the post.
As far as the actual beliefs of our founding fathers some like Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were established Deists and some others were thought to be so.
It's clearly stated in their quotes and the books they wrote like the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.