Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 02/06/07 2:38 pm:
So would you say that our system of government is much like our economic system? "It works only because we BELIEVE it works."

However, what is in place to stop a power-hungry tyrant from making a mountain out of a molehill, fabricating some "state of emergency," and creating a monarchy?

Hitler managed to pull it off quite nicely. Are we immune to such things?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/06/07 2:54 pm:
No we are not immune. It's one of the great dangers of our system. And if the military backs the tyrant, the danger is all the greater.

The only real defense to that is vigilance and a willingness to fight for our rights... which means supporting the Second Amendment. That is the reason the Second Amendment is there in the first place.

The fact is that no government, no matter how tyranical, only rules with the consent of the people. The people ALWAYS outnumber the government and the army, and given enough preparation time are often equally armed. That means that a truly determined population can always overthrow a tyrannical government. And the Second Amendment is there in the Constitution to protect and enhance that ability.

So in fact, we the people are the true "check and balance" against the rise of a tyrannical government. Sepparation of power helps, but it isn't a guarantee. The real guarantee that no tyrant will rise up is our willingness to keep it from happening through force, if necessary.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 02/06/07 3:28 pm:
It's no secret that I'm a HUGE supporter of the 2nd Amendment, as I am of ALL the Bill of Rights. So let's look at the 2nd for a second, since it provides an easily recognized scenario of gov't overstepping their bounds.

For 200 years, the 2nd has been interpreted (rightly, if one reads the Federalist Papers) to mean that private ownership of firearms is not only allowed, but encouraged.

Let's say that the rabid members of the left finally succeed in a "disarmament of America" plan, and begin door-to-door confiscation of privately owned firearms.

This plan passed through Congress, the President, and the SC (politically speaking, it could happen).

What do you do? Do you obey the new law? Or do you fight for the old one? What is your legal standing for fighting for the old one, since it was legally enacted by all three branches of the gov't?

We could do the same thing for the 1st and 4th Amendments pretty easily.

Can the gov't amend or change the Constitution in such a way as to revoke a previously held right?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/06/07 4:41 pm:
Good question. And that brings us back to your original post. What is our legal, moral and ethical responsibility as citizens, and for those of us who served in the military, as soldiers?

I would argue that protecting the Constitution outweighs our responsibility to any one administration or congressional session. If the government is abrogating the Constitution, it is our responsibility to fight against that government.

I once had a discussion with excon about whether obeying laws that we feel are wrong. He was of the opinion that it is okay to disobey marajuana laws that we feel are unfair, unjust or just plain wrong. I argues that just because I feel a law is wrong doesn't mean that I have the right to disobey it. However, I also told him that if the issue is important enough to him to break the law, that's his call, but if he gets caught its on HIS head, and is not the fault of the government. And marajuana laws aren't important enough to me to break the law to fight it.

I think the same thing is true here. If the government's abrogation of Constitutional Law is important enough to you to make you willing to fight against it, then you should do so... and if you get caught, the consequences are on your own head. In my case, if the government started abrogating our rights to free speech, legal gun ownership, freedom of religion, etc., I would fight againt it... but I would also know that the responsibility for my actions lies with me.

So yes, in the scenario that you speak of, I would a) maintain my own weapons and probably increase my arsenal in a clandestine manner, and b) try to organize a militant resistance against the tyrannical government. I believe that such would be my responsibility to the country I grew up in, and the Constitution.

But I also believe that reality is liekly to be a lot more subtle and nuanced than the clear-cut scenario you speak of. It is rarely so clear that a particular administration is acting as a tyrant until after the tyrant has a strong handhold on the country. The signs are often missed by the majority (or they refuse to believe the signs) until it is too late. So it might be the case that action cannot be taken until AFTER the fact. But I would like to believe that I would stand up for what's right even after the tyrant has seized the power. I hope that I would anyway. I would hate to thin of myself as one of the sheeple.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/06/07 5:05 pm:
Guys

What is your opinion of this ?

This goes back to my Ollie North point. Should these soldiers who are most likely fine officers face a penalty for doing what they believe is "defending the Constitution " ?

This is one of the most challenging questions ever asked on this board .Well done Dennis.