> Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations
There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.
There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.
I think it is always interesting when the curtain gets pulled back to reveal how all of our political systems and norms simply overlay the fact that power is the ultimate law of the land.
The sticky part comes in when the venue for determining the legality of the order often then becomes one's own court-martial and resulting appeals. I'm not sure how much case law there is on the subject.
The law is arguably not what's written, but what actually happens, and analyzed that way our laws about war crime are complicated.
Like, if it's not plainly an awful decision on its face (and god, it so very is) then the fact that just about every plausible application of it looks something like that, as far as who can and cannot be held responsible for their actions, should demonstrate that the decision is, in the highest ideal of what it means to be American, deeply un-American.
The stumbling block is if the President invokes the Insurrection Act. Which is a bit of a gray area.
It's less a legal provision than a consequence of humans being the interface of the law. So while there is, in theory, a duty to disobey, there is also a presumption of lawfulness of orders [1][2].
[1] https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawf...
[2] https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey...
> It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
So for those non-military reading, while it's almost always a bad idea to try to sea-lawyer your way out (though some court challenges have worked), you also are expected to use "ordinary sense and understanding" to reject orders like "go massacre those clearly unarmed noncombatants." But if it's not as cartoonishly obvious as that, there's a good chance you will have to defend your actions at a court-martial, and the legality of the order will be down to the interpretation of the presiding military judge and appellate courts.
- That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;
- That the accused had knowledge of the order; and
- That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
- That the accused failed to obey the order.
If the order is deemed unlawful by the military judge or appellate court, the case must be dismissed, because the Government has failed to allege an offense.
Interestingly the oath for enlisted does include a section on obeying the President, subject to the military Code.
Debt exists because of (the threat of) violence. Money exists because of debt (.. is in fact debt). Modern society is based on our monetary system.
Violence is a major form of power, but so are utility and persuasion.
You can persuade or pay people to things that you can't threaten or force them into.
Any examples? Beyond immaterial things like respect/love/etc?
Another example is when the cost of violence is high. If have two people with guns, or MAD scenarios, violence isnt an effective way to get what you want, so payment can be better.
The last example and simplest is if you need a service and the other party simply chooses destruction over acquiescence to violence. If a doctor would rather die than be forced to treat you, your violence is useless, and payment would be much better.
I tried to give simple human level examples, but they can also be scaled up to groups and states.
Guns and MAD are exactly the kind of violence society is founded upon. Ultimately you can't just stop paying tax or start driving illegal vehicles, because the state (usually) has a bigger gun than you. (In the case where it doesn't, you end up with something like Somalia or the mafia). MAD is the ultimate gun, not the absence of gun.
A doctor might be willing to die, but every man has a price he is not willing to pay - whether that's his child or a random child you pick off the street and make violent threats towards.
Payment is just a disguise and a convenience - the underlying order is still based on violence.
People with inferior violence and still have powers available.
This is obvious because two people can still conduct business even if they have guns pointed at each other's head. Two people can conduct business if neither of them have guns and a third party is a gun at both of their heads.
This means that there are powers beyond violence that can be used to influence others.
And while on the face of it, this video would appear to jump headlong into a hot button political discussion... it's actually very calm, collected, and appears to be striving to provide an objective analysis from a military perspective about just these issues.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/07/12/what-happens-...