> I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
> I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)
I'll grant you that these militias are well-armed and have sketchy loyalties, but if the US military decided they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution, against Trump, they'd crush the Oath Keepers and their ilk.
Many of the members of those militias are themselves military or ex-military. Which already tells you volumes about how likely it is that all of the US military would "decide they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution". Besides, those guys don't think of what they are doing as contradicting the constitution - quite the opposite! They are very obviously wrong, but that has never stopped fanatics from believing in their creed.
The real question, anyway, is not whether the military will obey Trump's illegal orders, should he issue them. It's whether the military would do something to stop the militias if Trump lets them off the leash with an explicit mandate.
And my concern is that most of the lower-ranking officers and people below them will prefer to sit it out. Because if they do something, and it's not enough, they are all looking at actual treason charges and likely death sentences.
Do you really believe that these lower-ranking soldiers are going to sit idly by while they watch their family members get raped and executed (because that's what lawless paramilitaries do) on the nightly news?
But it won't be their family members, in most cases. It will be some despicable "cultural Marxists" or even more abstract "terrorists". And the rapes? Fake news.
Which does match what GP said. Enlisted swear to defend the constitution and obey the president. No limitation to lawful orders or stated precedence between the too. Commissioned officers don't swear to obey the president
What do you mean "no limitation to lawful orders"? That's what "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" means. Article 92 is pretty explicit about what constitutes a lawful order.
A soldier comes to their own assessment then a court martial decides later on if they agree. Just like every other form of action: do what you believe is within bounds, then find out later if the courts agree
The individual. If your boss orders you to do something illegal, it’s up to you to be sceptical and do your research. That’s the only way it can work without converting a part of the population to drones.
- Enlisted swear oaths to the constitution and President
- Officers swear an oath to the constitution
I’ve only been told this, I don’t claim to know.