BertramCapt

@PostBudClarity It even says specifically, "The President of the United States" . Said this oath 3 times.

@BertramDays80 Circle the section in the above screenshot where it mentions obeying the orders of those appointed over you

No officer in the U.S. military takes an oath to serve the Commander-in-Chief.

@0311OpEssexman @aqmac75 @JohnDoe56070532 @JamesSurowiecki Yes, it he "were" to be or "was". Hypothetical. Again...oath to Constitution > Constitution Article II Section 2 says POTUS in charge of military, military says everyone obeys orders of POTUS = you follow orders all way down chain of command from POTUS. If this, than that logic

@BertramDays80 @aqmac75 @JohnDoe56070532 @JamesSurowiecki Their first duty and obligation is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. If they were to find out a POTUS was in fact treasonous then their duty would be as outlined, defend our Constitution. It always comes first.

@Lo_Stine @NoZoup @JamesSurowiecki

@NoZoup @JamesSurowiecki @BertramDays80 I know that. Saying someone would follow trumps orders is my concern.

@NoZoup @Lo_Stine @JamesSurowiecki And normally, I would say thay is healthy in a Constitutional Republic, but it is very dangerous in a military.

@NoZoup @Lo_Stine @JamesSurowiecki People act like Mai Lai is being ordered on a regular basis. It is so rare that it is only brought up to summon up political dissonance.

@Lo_Stine @NoZoup @JamesSurowiecki To be short, our "feeling are irrelevant".... do your fucking job!!

@NoZoup @JamesSurowiecki @BertramDays80 What about if they were illegal orders?

@Lo_Stine @NoZoup @JamesSurowiecki And just for record, I served as a NCO under 2 very different admins, and in the Fed Gov. Under 3 very different admins, I follow policies & orders given by the dually elected head of Executive branch. As service members & public servants, it is NOT our place to decide policy!!!

@NoZoup @JamesSurowiecki Jesus Christ, thank God someone who was in the military still understands the oath beyond just the words on the page. For fs sake!!!

@JamesSurowiecki @BertramDays80 I have. And I said I would faithfully discharge the duties of my office which means obeying superiors. The commander in chief being one of them. Thank you for my TED talk on something that’s obvious.

@Lo_Stine @NoZoup @JamesSurowiecki I already stated in several comments if there are illegal or unconstitutional, than this does not apply. But guess what, .00001 of the time, your average officer ir enlisted is not making thay call.

@phoonteckman @aqmac75 @JohnDoe56070532 @JamesSurowiecki Your oath demands you obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief

@phoonteckman @aqmac75 @JohnDoe56070532 @JamesSurowiecki Where isbthe flaw in my logic. Tell me and I will conceed. Oath > Article II, Section 2 (Co In Chief as head of military) = obey orders of said Co in Chief. If this, than that follows logic? Where is the flaw? Not loyalty, but duty.

@clevergalCA @JamesSurowiecki Again, I am aware, saving space for letter count does not invalidate my argument.

@BertramDays80 @JamesSurowiecki JFC, its Commander IN Chief.

@gogosoul63 @JamesSurowiecki Having teqd the Federalist Papers many times I am keenly awake of the forefathers intent. I am telling you the logical practice of the oath and obedience to the Constitution

@BertramDays80 @JamesSurowiecki Doesn't matter. Trump cannot issue them orders directly. He doesn't know what he is doing or talking about anyway.

@gogosoul63 @JamesSurowiecki Please dont put words in my mouth

@gogosoul63 @JamesSurowiecki *and who said directly

@gogosoul63 @JamesSurowiecki Ahold said anything about "directly"? He gives an order, and it "filters down the chain of command.

@gogosoul63 @JamesSurowiecki Again, no one said anything about loyalty

@BertramDays80 @JamesSurowiecki And let me explain it to you, AGAIN. The founders didn't want the military to be loyal to one person. They had seen enough of that in the British forces. This was intentionally done hundreds of years ago. There are papers written about it that you can read.

@gogosoul63 @JamesSurowiecki And I see someone might be deleting my comments?

@BertramDays80 @JamesSurowiecki The President (the Commander-in-Chief, genius) is left off of the officer's oath, which is a "Constitutional Oath" focused on supporting the Constitution rather than promising direct obedience to superiors, distinguishing it from the "Oath of Enlistment".

@gogosoul63 @JamesSurowiecki One more time for the slow lids on the range: oath > Consitution (Article II, Section 2, role of Commander-in-Chief as head of military), =obey orders of Potus. If this, than thay follows logic. From good old, greece