UnConstitutional Military Orders: How is the Military Different than Those Convicted at Nuremberg if They Obey Them?
“A long habit of not thinking a thing to be wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” So wrote Thomas Paine in his famous work “Common Sense” in 1774.
The same thing is true of something that is unconstitutional – that is – unlawful. A long habit of not rejecting it, leads us to wrongly consider it as acceptable.
For example, since Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution vests the authority to declare war in Congress. It is unlawful – illegal – for the president to send American troops abroad without such a declaration by Congress.
But no American president has followed the law since WWII and, therefore, today, we tend to accept actions by Barack Obama (and others) that we shouldn’t accept, since they are blatantly lawless.
At one time in our history, we could depend on the members of our military branches to object and to resist and to refuse to obey unlawful orders. This is because, at one time, our military officers and men understood and respected the Constitution as the rule of law in America.
Today, however, it seems that most commanders and rank and file military personnel have succumbed to the temptation to obey unlawful orders rather than their oath to the Constitution, which they made before God.
We respect our military and we urgently desire to support them. However, they are only worthy of honor and praise and support when they follow the law.
When they blindly follow the unlawful orders of a lawless commander-in-chief, how are they any different from those who were convicted at Nuremberg?
*Article by Michael Peroutka