From: Robert Coyote (coyyote@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 06 2001 - 09:42:01 MDT
Although the military not trained to believe it has the
responsibility of deciding when the Constitution has been violated, and The
Supreme court has in fact stated that unconstitutional laws need not be
obeyed, the Military powers are subordinate to the Civil powers.
Question: What happens if those who are duly authorized to decide when the
constitution has been violated are the violators themselves?
On 5 Apr 2001, at 22:18, Spike Jones wrote:
> John Marlow wrote:
>
> > I thought he had a frighteningly valid argument for the curtailment
> > of First Amendment rights.
> > > ---------------------------
> > > How do you reconcile relinquishment with civic rights to innovation?
He says 1st
> > > amendment isn't important since many countries function ok without
it. He really
> > > doesn't have an answer to this...
>
> Perhaps some of those who have been in the military will comment
> on this. The way I understood the constitution, the Bill of Rights
> cannot be abrogated, now or in the future, thus the name Rights.
> Those who serve in the military take an oath to defend not the
> government, but to defend the constitution. The way I read that,
> should any future U.S. government attempt to repeal any of the
> Bill of Rights, then that constitutes an attack on the constitution,
> making that government invalid, so the military is obligated to
> reestablish a government that is based on the constitution. The
> government has not the authority to repeal the first amendment,
> or the second, or any of the Bill of Rights. Right?
> spike
>
John Marlow
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:52 MST