A textbook example involves President Bush’s war on Iraq.
2005-10-14
The Troops Don’t Support the Constitution
Every U.S. soldier takes an express and solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” That oath, however, is a sham because the troops do not support or defend the Constitution. Instead, when it comes to war the troops follow another oath they take — to obey the orders of the president, and they do this without regard to whether such orders violate the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
1) I agree that the soldier's oath (which I took as an Army Reservist) to "protect and defend the US Constitution" is a sham, because it conflicts with their obligation to obey orders without assessing the constitutionality of the orders. However, the oath does provide coverage and inspiration for soldiers in extreme situations steeling themselves to disobey orders or otherwise defy misconduct around them. The turtoring of Iraqi captives is an example.
2) I am starting to agree that you have a point about the the Iraq invasion violating the constitution. I am not certain of this, but since I and my libertarian/republican cohorts advertise ourselves as strict constructionalists, we have a special obligation to achieve purity here.
But you, Nadir, must accept the consequences of adopting this view: are you applying this only to have your way in opposing the Iraq war? Or are you willing to apply this pro-constitution enthusiasm to federal efforts that you favor, such as Affirmative Action, welfare, Roe v. Wade, etc.?
I am a pro-abortionist who is unsure if the constitution bans or permits anti-abortion laws. I feel the same way about anti-drug laws.
Post a Comment