What about "domestic enemies" of the Constitution?

Question

When we take the oath to "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic," what, exactly, does that mean we are obligated to do against the domestic enemies of the Constitution? I have a long list of infractions that need fixin'

Who is willing to be true to the oath?

FWIW, I have checked with all branches' official military historians, and can find not a single instance where anyone, ever, got in trouble for failing to defend the Constitution from a domestic enemy.

Stupid, empty words in that oath -- like the Constitution, eh? Why defend America? She doesn't stand for anything any more.

Answer 1

This is best answered by the words of your first President, George Washington in his farwell letter.

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates."

Answer 2

Police and lawyers are the only two classes of persons in America who qualify as domestic enemies that must be restrained under the constitution, the Bill of Rights is all about abuse of power by cops, searching and seizing and lawyers restricting freedoms. Lawyers, include the lawyer prosecutors and lawyer judges and lawyer politicians who write and enforce laws that change the bill of rights. When police and legal abuses rise to the level of those during Revolutionary times, it is the duty of the military who have taken the oath to defend the constitution against foreign and domestic enemies, to squash such tyranny by the class of cops and lawyers and restore the republic.

Answer 3

aerocentral,
Certainly double agents are enemies of the constitution as are traitors, terrorists and anyone wanting to destroy our way of life. Beyond that, be very careful about labeling anyone an 'enemy of the constitution' because the constitution itself protects those who disagree with what goes on. In other words just having an opinion (whether it's anti american or anti-anything) doesn't make someone an enemy of the constitution which says they have a right to their opinion. It's only when someone 'does' something. I know it's a thin line and there are a lot of gray areas. Our history has a long list of people that thought they were taking down enemies of the constitution only to discover they were just harrasing someone with an opinion. Could you be more clear about the 'infractions'?

Answer 4

This bit of constitutionality must either be changed slightly or every signatory of Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge whom have won Congressional office and taken the oath of office qualify both as sworn defenders of the Constitution from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC and indeed DOMESTIC ENEMIES THEMSELVES--treacherous liars whom have entered conflict of interest either as simpletons who have no value to their name to lose or, on the other end of the spectrum, complicit ideologues in America's first home-grown totalitarian gang whom have defacto seceded from American democratic traditions and laws. There are two courses of action to remedy this as I see it that represent the least two confrontational to avoid the kind of sociopolitical breakdown which may bring strife at the lest to our nation--one is to make the case in Federal Court against the specific totality pledge which has been used over the last almost two decades to fill Congress with republicans of divided loyalties who have become loyal neither to Norquist, nor the voters but to each other as a "gang" with its own consequences for breaking ranks (first shunning, then rancor leading to classification as RINO. withdrawal of support, being tossed to Limbaugh and the right wing partisan media for character assassination, and then "primaying" in which they will find themselves cut off from donors and shown the door in favor of a more "pure" and extreme right wing gangster who will observe loyalty to the gang above loyalty to the other of office. This is extortion for which no new law be created, but it is an innovative scheme and winning at setting legal precedent which will nullify the pledge and the gang and setting in place a "cease and desist order" after which it will be a crime to try this scheme again will take a brilliant, persuasive and comprehensively delivery of a case. And the other is to change the oath of office to include language addressing the nullification of any previously sworn totality or loyalty pledges so as not to have grounds for any totalities competing inside of democracy where one side observes the will of the people and the other observes the will of the mob who has so ensnared or enticed them into a perverted counter-loyalty where the entire group treats the one issue of funding the government the same undemocratic and extortionary way. That WOULD require Congressional agreement which is unlikely in coming unless charges are brought to bear for the original acquiescence to dual loyalties where the criminal outweighs the legal and "terms" are offered by the court to resign or ratify the change. Every American IMO should be demanding action on this matter because it hurts voters of both parties, Republicans get only a choice of absurd caricatures. And Democrats, if they lose, will have all their bills defeated or obstructed just as they are now. Republicans, do you want candidates of character like Bob Dole, or more pin heads like Louis Gohmert. This is America's brush with tyranny--and the cancer is not on the Presidency. Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch and colluders have used this scheme to replace and intimidate the republicans in the House and Senate. Obama must not leave this business unaddressed because Mitt Romney signed Norquist's pledge. And had he won, we would be a totality under Norquist and everything else about American democracy would be a cardboard cutout of a country that once was.

Answer 5

You mean the no-fly list and the loss of due process? Or lawless zones and gulags where there is no due process? Or do you mean our attorney general saying that habeas is not a right even though I see in the both article 9 of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Is this what your talking about? I think this is treason that's why. It's called the Bush Paradox. You have to be stupid and a low regard for law and justice to unnderstand.

Answer 6

Domestic enimies- those who willfully destroy America from the inside. Bush, Rove, Cheney are good modern examples. historical examples might include McCarthy, Lee, Jefferson Davis, so on and so forth. It doens't matter, they're all just words that nobody accually cares about. GWB took an oath to defend the Constitution- But admittedly, he still has 2 years. He may start soon.

Answer 7

You must not give up, but firm up your beliefs and then stand up no matter what. Too many have died so that we can so we must. America is people not just a place on the map and there has never been another nation like it. It will only decline and disappear if we don't do all we can to save ourselves.
There are serious traitors among us who need to be called to justice. We have almost as many enemies within as without.
Our moral decline matches Nero's Rome pretty closely. You may be only one, but you are one. Light a candle.

Answer 8

America stands for freedom you fool. This is the greatest country the world has seen. In the last 100 years, we have defeated Communism, Totalitarianism, Socialism, Nazism... Americans have worked hard for what we have and unless you want to lose all of the freedoms you enjoy, start sining a different tune.
Any other place in the world sucks...
Middle East- You can be prosecuted/executed for not praying to Allah at the prescribed time.
South america- Corrupt governments. You will find out what it means to REALLy fear the police.
Canada- If you get sick, too bad, you must apply for heathcare and the governement must approve it.
Europe- Income taxes are as high as 51% of your annual gross income. Imagine the government taking more from you than you get to keep.

Answer 9

What about "domestic enemies" of the Constitution?
Not really a question - more of an insult to USA.

Answer 10

FDR got mad at the Supreme Court and tried to add one more justice for each justice over 70 years old.

He proposed that when the court UNANIMOUSLY ruled that FDR's "National Recovery Act" was unconstitutional.

FDR's own party was ashamed and totally avoided that attempt by FDR to become a dictator.


America DID stand for something until Democrats became hateful. In anycase, it seems like everyone wants to become an American. ;)