Military Warns Active Duty, Reservists, and Retirees Not To March for Ron Paul on 20 Feb.

[cheapseats]

Then you must be all for the U.S. government being the world's police eh?

Provide evidence indicating such, or as stand as an idle spewer of crap like YOUR MOTHER WEARS ARMY BOOTS.

The U.S. has no business in other countries affairs--period. The military is cannon fodder for the elites!!

Agreed.

What has that to do with defying directive AGAINST assembly in political demonstration, particularly when NOT breaking ranks to defend Civilians from "official" abuses?

Our military has a right to speak out, regardless, of what you or others may think--stick that in your hat.

Check the Operating Instructions.

The Military code is unconstitutional plan and simple.

And that statement shall be made, by Military, via public rally in favor of an opposing Commander in Chief?

How do people seriously go around pretending that the military is out fighting for our freedoms? Good God, so many people are screwed with that thinking!

Certainly I do not go around so pretending.

Nor do I go around pretending that NOT laying down arms in unjust wars but, rather, demonstrating for a particular Opposition Candidate constitutes TAKING IT TO THE MAN on the war-4-profit thing. Again, PARTICULARLY, insofar as Troops have NOT broken ranks to defend Civilians against unconstitutionality and other abuses.

 

[tnvoter]

not even in a V mask? Not under the premise that you're promoting yourself as Active Duty... it's true.

 

[devil21]

Has anyone been able to confirm that this is real? Ive posted it elsewhere and questions about the authenticity have been raised.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Perhaps a veteran money bomb is in order? =P... If veterans and active duty are prevented, discouraged, or threatened to not support a future commander in chief, then there are other ways to show support. It's not like they are talking bad about the current commander in chief.

I hope thousands show up. Safety in numbers and more media attention if high ups try to start something.

 

[idiom]

It would be very interesting if the first mass arrests of this movement were of soldiers for civil disobedience.

At some point peaceful protesting ends up in a lot of us going to jail. The only way this backfires is if the media can spin it as a birther movement. Otherwise you have hundreds or thousands of military personnel being imprisoned for supporting Ron Paul and the Constitution.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Wouldn't be the first time.

Soldiers have been raising hell about getting the short end of the stick from this government, almost since it started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

It would be very interesting if the first mass arrests of this movement were of soldiers for civil disobedience.

At some point peaceful protesting ends up in a lot of us going to jail. The only way this backfires is if the media can spin it as a birther movement. Otherwise you have hundreds or thousands of military personnel being imprisoned for supporting Ron Paul and the Constitution.

 

[SCOTUSman]

I like how a lot of people here claim to be constitutionalists and the like, but completely ignore Article I, Section 8, Clause 14.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I like how a lot of people here claim to be constitutionalists and the like, but completely ignore Article I, Section 8, Clause 14.

Only goes to prove, as if any more proof was needed, that the Anti Federalists were right all along, in that there is almost unlimited "wiggle room" in the Constitution to tyrannize people.

Just because somebody has the authority to make a law or regulation, does not make it just.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Only goes to prove, as if any more proof was needed, that the Anti Federalists were right all along, in that there is almost unlimited "wiggle room" in the Constitution to tyrannize people.

Just because somebody has the authority to make a law or regulation, does not make it just.

FTW!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

dammit! I needz moar rep powerz!

 

[SCOTUSman]

Only goes to prove, as if any more proof was needed, that the Anti Federalists were right all along, in that there is almost unlimited "wiggle room" in the Constitution to tyrannize people.

Just because somebody has the authority to make a law or regulation, does not make it just.

Wrong. People are making a CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT. Therefore the basis you go off is the CONSTITUTION. Not a normative approach or argument, but a legal one as it is. A positivist one. Therefore based off the Constitution. It is constitutional. Now if you want to make the normative argument you are making, that is fine. However, everyone claiming unconstitutional is wrong. Read the Constitution. Don't mix up Constitutional law arguments versus normative legal arguments.

Also the anti-federalists lost out, whether you like it or not. The federalists (Madison, Hamilton and Jay) made their arguments and won out in the end.

Because now the argument has switched to ignore the Constitution.

 

[idiom]

Wrong. People are making a CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT. Therefore the basis you go off is the CONSTITUTION. Not a normative approach or argument, but a legal one as it is. A positivist one. Therefore based off the Constitution. It is constitutional. Now if you want to make the normative argument you are making, that is fine. However, everyone claiming unconstitutional is wrong. Read the Constitution. Don't mix up Constitutional law arguments versus normative legal arguments.

Also the anti-federalists lost out, whether you like it or not. The federalists (Madison, Hamilton and Jay) made their arguments and won out in the end.

Because now the argument has switched to ignore the Constitution.

The Constitution also makes it clear that citizens have the right to protest, publicly gather and seek redress of grievances. The ability to make regulations doesn't mean those regulations can remove other constitutional protections.

 

[SaulPaulinsky]

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

Yes, it is true. The DoD prohibits it for people on active duty. People not on active duty have a lot more leeway. But here's the directive, for anyone that requires it.

 

[SCOTUSman]

The Constitution also makes it clear that citizens have the right to protest, publicly gather and seek redress of grievances. The ability to make regulations doesn't mean those regulations can remove other constitutional protections.

Yes. True. Of course. But this is APART of the constitution. You can regulate the military. Period. There about hundreds of other regulations that the government couldn't impose on a regular citizen. The regulations meet rational basis standards for what the goal is. Plus again. Voluntarism. You are agreeing to these terms. Seriously personal responsibility, contracts, etc. doesn't seem to apply here. And I'll bet my right hand these regulations would be upheld 9-0 by SCOTUS, if they even heard the case. So long as the regulations are reasonable and tied to what the goals of the military are. They can't say you can talk never because there is no rational basis for it.

You cannot ignore Article I, Section 8.

 

[Cigaboo]

It sounds like there are two conflicting rules that service men must obey: protecting the constitution and not vocally supporting a specific political candidate. Seeing as Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will obey the constitution, logically it is necessary to support him to protect the constitution. So I think it comes down to - which of those two rules is most important for you to obey?

 

[Fredom101]

bump for fucking insane.

This. Bump.

 

[RickyJ]

Hopefully the numbers that show up for this event are just overwhelming and they can't do anything about it.

Fear is all these swine have. Show them you have no fear of them and laugh in their faces in mass protest and they will cower in the corner. You can't win a revolution by obeying the enemy's rules.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

[video=youtube;dWvCCxOUsM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dWvCCxOUsM8[/video]

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I hope they do it anyway.

 

[libertarian4321]

That e-mail is completely fine.

People should not wear the uniform and endorse a specific candidate, as while wearing it you represent the military. The military does not endorse any candidates and neither should people that represent it.

The question if active duty military should be allowed to participate in these marches in civilian clothes is up for debate though.

Yup, we already knew all of this.

Active Duty folks should be cautious, because they could be prosecuted. Though it's unlikely that they will send MPs or Cops to check on people. The bigger risk is that you are seen on CNN (assuming the media bothers to cover it) and your commander sees you participating.

 

[libertarian4321]

Military Warns Active Duty, Reservists, and Retirees Not To March for Ron Paul

The letter clearly does NOT say what the title indicates.

It says ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY should not march (which is true).

It says that Reservists and Retirees can march, as long as they don't indicate that they are representing the military- no big deal- as long as they don't wear their uniform, they will be fine.

All other veterans (this is probably the largest group, btw) are free to march with no restrictions.

The letter says essentially the same thing that I said in the thread when Adam first mentioned the march- it's not some sort of "anti- Ron Paul" campaign, it's just stating military rules.