Re: ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES - ROGUE WARRIORS


Enrico Pangan wrote:
a.manansala@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Just because the they think (very subjective) their leaders are not
following the Constitution, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't
follow the Constitution themselves.

That sounds nice but it won't work, and hasn't worked.

Are you saying the military and the people should not follow the
Constitution whenever they feel one of their leaders didn't follow it?

Oh my.



No, but I'm saying they have the right to take up arms.


The military was perfectly right in rebelling against the Marcos
regime. You could even say they were in fact following the spirit of
the "Constitution" by rebelling.

The spirit of the Constitution can be interpreted in oh so many ways.
Sedition is illegal under most Constitutions... even the Constitution
of the oh so great US of A.



The USA was founded by lawbreakers who rebelled against the sovereign
government of the country.


Following orders like a robot is a thing of the past. If the president
orders you to massacre civilians, you disobey an unlawful order based
on your conscience.

You're not very familiar with the military, are you?

Two rules I learned from ROTC (1994-1996):
1. Your commander is always right.
2. When you think your commander is wrong, refer to rule number 1.


I was in the military not just ROTC.

Things are different with civilians though.


Nope, civilians are also required to follow the law of the land as
citizens. They have no more right to rebel against the govt than do
soldiers.


As I said, the "spirit of the law" is very subjective and may not even
stand the test of a judicial hearing. That is why we entrust our
legislators to make sure that the "letter of the law" is clear and
truthful to everybody's perceived "spirit of the law".

You "entrust" them only to a certain extent. Once they violate that
trust, you have the right to take up arms against them. There is no
one-sided contract between the people and the govt.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush is daring americans to do something - I HOPE WE WILL
    ... It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored. ... with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved. ... communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period. ... spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Reflecting On The Law By Shad Saleem Farudi
    ... A written Constitution was adopted as the ?supreme law of the Federation? ... independent judiciary and a federal-state division of powers. ... How has constitutional supremacy worked? ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • A Bibliography for Researching Original Understanding
    ... Despite the obvious importance of the Constitution's original understanding, legal writers attempting to deduce the original understanding often have reached their conclusions based on astonishingly few sources. ... Among the malefactors, alas, are some Supreme Court justices and contributors to the nation's most prestigious law reviews. ... When lawyers interpret a legal document - whether a contract, statute, or constitution, they generally try to determine the "intent" of those who promulgated the document. ... Originalists have differed as to the exact "intent" most probative of the Constitution's meaning. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • TURMEL: Pearson Booby-traps Nielsen motion
    ... EP: Court File No: ... the Crown has the right to respond and make arguments. ... that the statute is no longer known to law since Courts Only ... of s.52 of the Constitution Act, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Hoist on their own petard
    ... For today we are here to defend the rule of law. ... The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and ... branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established ... sole power of impeachment. ...
    (alt.politics)