Comment by notepad0x90

They swore an oath to defend the constitution of the US against enemies both foreign and domestic. It is entirely lawful for them to fulfill that duty.

If the commander in cheif and the civilian administration are clearly and unquestionably violating the constitution, they are no longer legitimate. If they are acting to harm the american people, acting as agents of a foreign enemy or as a domestic enemy to harm the american people, then they are not only illegitimate but the military is oath-bound to fight them with necessary force.

> That the weakening of loyalty to the Constitution has been pervasive on those serious counts, is one of the reasons it has been so easy to undermine further.

I can agree with that, that is because the people who swore an oath to defend it have not done so. They wave flags like it's a sports team they're cheering for.

Ultimately, the design of the constitution is such that either the people taking arms, or a patriotic military resisting the government would serve as the ultimate recourse. The system of checks and balances works so long as consequences are still a thing. If in the 1800s a president decided to do half the things trump did, anyone could shoot his face off and get away with it without consequence. These things aren't practical anymore.

The military has the duty to resist unlawful orders. But if a russian agent usurped the US government and civilians are incapable of doing something about it, then that's what they're there for. The military doesn't exist to bomb foreign countries thousands of miles away, it is there to defend the homeland. The original idea was that if laws are no longer a thing (obeyed by the government) the lawlessness would be too terrifying for those in power, therefore lawfulness is in their interest.