Panther wrote on Jul 2
nd, 2015 at 9:38am:
you fall prey to the age old fault of using today's terminology & definitions when attempting to define the Original Framer's Intent.
Ah, that old chestnut. That's the big point of division in interpreting constitutions. In Australia, they call it the Originalist vs Progressivist methods of interpretation. Seems the yanks have stuck with the originalist one. Pity for them. Thankfully, our High Court hasn't.
While I understand why you cite the Supreme Court cases, the fact is that the judges are all political appointees anyway (IIRC, the yanks vote for their judges!).
At any rate, the point I was making is that there is an alternative, more sensible way of interpreting that section; whether the yanks take it up is frankly their problem.
Panther wrote on Jul 2
nd, 2015 at 12:03pm:
are obligated by that same oath not to obey illegal orders.
Ah, illegal orders. That's one of these ideas that sounds terrific in a classroom, but is frankly nothing more than a loophole for the military to disown an individual caught out. Think about it: the lawfulness of orders is only determined after the fact. Classic case -- the Nuremburg trials. All the orders were "lawful" as per Germany's national law of the time. If they'd been refused, the soldiers would have been shot. But, since they were carried out -- and post facto declared unlawful -- the soldiers were hanged instead.
Forum
Pages: 
Disarming USA (Read 95877 times)
