Oath Keepers organizer sees need to sound an alarm

[snopes]

Rand Cardwell drums up support for an antigovernment group whose views illustrate the disconnect that has come to define popular political discourse in President Obama's first tumultuous year.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4937225.story

[Broken Sword]

Although Cardwell welcomes all concerned citizens to his meetings, the Oath Keepers' main message targets military and public safety personnel, active and inactive. It reminds them that they swore allegiance to the Constitution, not to politicians or bureaucrats. As such, they have the right to refuse orders they deem unlawful.

Cardwell barked them out at the Tea Party, to great applause: They will not obey orders to disarm Americans or confiscate property, including food. They will not help the government blockade American cities or confine Americans to concentration camps. Nor will they assist foreign troops brought onto U.S. soil to "maintain control."

Um, I don't think I'll be doing any of those things either. Does that mean I can be an oathkeeper too?

One question I have though - I assume the police can still disarm armed criminals, right?

[lord_feldon]

As such, they have the right to refuse orders they deem unlawful.

That's not true. They have the right to refuse orders that are unlawful. What they personally deem unlawful is really irrelevant.

ETA: Actually, public safety personnel have the right to refuse whatever order they want, since it is not a crime for a police officer or firefighter to quit hir job, AFAIK.

[MidgardDragon]

As such, they have the right to refuse orders they deem unlawful.

And....where exactly were these people at the beginning of the Iraq war?

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by MidgardDragon

And....where exactly were these people at the beginning of the Iraq war?

How is Iraq war unlawful? It was explicitly authorized by Congress.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

How is Iraq war unlawful? It was explicitly authorized by Congress.

You could make the case that it broke international law.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

You could make the case that it broke international law.

As a member of the US Military I swore (well affirmed in my heathen case but still...) allegiance to the US Constitution, not to any international law.

[BringTheNoise]

So the United States feels no need to honour the treaties it signs? That's how international law works. There's no international parliament appointed by secret cabal that can impose laws on countries against their will.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

So the United States feels no need to honour the treaties it signs?

Acts of Congress and treaties are equal in US law. So legally (at least as far a US law goes*), there is no need to honor treaties so long as Congress abrogates them by passing a contrary Act after the treaty is ratified. It might be bad, but not everything bad is illegal.

*Which, realistically, is the only law that's going to matter. Again, maybe it's not good that it's the case here, but law is only relevant so long as it can be enforced.

[PatYoung]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

*Which, realistically, is the only law that's going to matter. Again, maybe it's not good that it's the case here, but law is only relevant so long as it can be enforced.

Basically you seem to be saying that any treaty with the United States is not worth the paper it is printed on. Theoretically enforcement could be imposed by other nations, but they would likely be annihilated if they tried.

An argument could be made that wars can only follow formal declarations of war by congress and that mere delegations of the warmaking power do not pass Constitutional muster. I know, I know, that since this cannot be enforced, it is essentially toothless.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by PatYoung

Basically you seem to be saying that any treaty with the United States is not worth the paper it is printed on. Theoretically enforcement could be imposed by other nations, but they would likely be annihilated if they tried.

I guess you could put it that way. It's not necessarily good, but reality sucks sometimes.

Originally Posted by PatYoung

An argument could be made that wars can only follow formal declarations of war by congress and that mere delegations of the warmaking power do not pass Constitutional muster.

The Iraq war was authorized by Congress before it began. It wasn't delegated.

My personal view is that the authorization of force is sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements. There is one point where there is a constitutional requirement that certain words be used (the presidential oath of office), and it's pretty clear that it has to be done that way (the president "shall take the following oath or affirmation" and the oath is in quotation marks). I think if the founding fathers meant a declaration of war to be meaningless unless the proper form was followed, they would have made it clear that the words "declare" and "war" had to be in every declaration.

I don't think that's ever really been resolved, though.

[PatYoung]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

The Iraq war was authorized by Congress before it began. It wasn't delegated.

My personal view is that the authorization of force is sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements. There is one point where there is a constitutional requirement that certain words be used (the presidential oath of office), and it's pretty clear that it has to be done that way (the president "shall take the following oath or affirmation" and the oath is in quotation marks). I think if the founding fathers meant a declaration of war to be meaningless unless the proper form was followed, they would have made it clear that the words "declare" and "war" had to be in every declaration.

I don't think that's ever really been resolved, though.

The authorization clearly was not a declaration of war. It passed the buck to the president to decide to go to war, hardly what the Framers, with their deep suspicion of the war making power generally, could have intended.

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

As a member of the US Military I swore (well affirmed in my heathen case but still...) allegiance to the US Constitution, not to any international law.

That may be, but if it broke international law, it is still unlawful, regardless of your allegiance.

[Broken Sword]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

That may be, but if it broke international law, it is still unlawful, regardless of your allegiance.

The use of "unlawful" was in the context of military personnel disobeying orders. In that context, "unlawful" means "against U.S. law", not international law.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

The use of "unlawful" was in the context of military personnel disobeying orders. In that context, "unlawful" means "against U.S. law", not international law.

My understanding of international law is that treaties to which we are a party are also US laws. My understanding may be simplistic, however.

[erwins]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

My understanding of international law is that treaties to which we are a party are also US laws. My understanding may be simplistic, however.

Your understanding is correct. Any treaty that has been signed by the president and ratified by Congress is the equivalent of US law. That also means that, like any other law, if Congress passes a new law that conflicts with any previous law--including treaties--the new law is considered controlling in the area in which they conflict.

Of course, if Congress abrogates treaties willy-nilly, then there will be diplomatic headaches, so I think there is probably an effort to avoid conflicts.

erwins

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

The use of "unlawful" was in the context of military personnel disobeying orders. In that context, "unlawful" means "against U.S. law", not international law.

I refer you to erwins' post:

Originally Posted by erwins

Your understanding is correct. Any treaty that has been signed by the president and ratified by Congress is the equivalent of US law. That also means that, like any other law, if Congress passes a new law that conflicts with any previous law--including treaties--the new law is considered controlling in the area in which they conflict.

Therefore, if the war is illegal, how can any order to fight in it be legal?

[Elkhound]

What is this international law that you speak of? Where is the international legislature, elected by the people, who voted on it? Where is the international executive that may enforce it? Where is the international judiciary that may interpret it, and may impose sanctions on those who violate it?

[Broken Sword]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Therefore, if the war is illegal, how can any order to fight in it be legal?

I am under the impression (I could be wrong) that Congress's authorization eliminates any legality issues, at least under U.S. law.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

I am under the impression (I could be wrong) that Congress's authorization eliminates any legality issues, at least under U.S. law.

There are still a handful of constitutional issues unresolved. We're okay, for the moment, with the status quo. The war was legal -- even if some future Supreme Court rules that it wasn't.

The big questions are: is the War Powers Act constitutional, under which the Congress can tell the President that he can't order troops into action for indefinite periods, even though he is Commander-in-Chief, and are Congressional "authorizations" for the use of force acceptable substitutes for formal "declarations of war."

My view is yes to both. The War Powers Act restores to Congress the right to determine if there shall be fighting, and the use of "authorizations" are functional equivalents to declarations of war, pretty much the same in all but name. (Just as Congress can't sneak past the President's veto power by passing a "joint resolution" or some other motion, and not calling it a "law." If something passes both Houses, then the President can veto it!)

The genius of the War Powers Act is that it lets the President act unilaterally, but only for a brief time, in a true emergency. Both sides (i.e., Administrative Supremacy and Congressional Supremacy) are equally dissatisfied with it -- which is one of the hallmarks of a good law! The President can get us into a shooting situation -- but can't go so far as to involve us in a full scale war: Congress must authorize that. Yet we aren't stuck in a stupid ten-day-long debate, if terrorists sieze hostages on a cruise ship somewhere.

Silas