Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[marct]

Hi Sam,

I was always taught that the power went this way...

people --> Constitution --> civilian leadership --> military/bureaucracy etc..

I've seen the same thing. Still, there is a difference between "power" and "legitimacy" in the sense of the legitimate social use of power. From my reading of it, your constitution legitimizes popular power and constrains its social forms and some of the procedures of its application. For example, you do not directly elect your President and it is quite possible that the one elected under the constitutional strictures actually loses the popular vote.

Some people try and say that the Constitution is the law of the land (restricts people and gives power to the government), but it is actually about restricting the rights of government and empowering people instead of government. Specifically the 9th amendment, and 10th amendment limit government power to only those given in the Constitution and put "The People" as the top dog.

Maybe - there have always been limits on the franchise which restricts who "The People" actually are. Also, I would argue,that you fought a civil war over this issue, and "The People" lost when the federal government was empowered to supersede individual states rights. I think that the tensions go back right to the founding of your country.

Of course we could also say that the Officers oath has a direct violation of the Posse Commitatus act in it "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic".

That's always been an interesting loophole to my mind, since it never really defines what "defend" means; is it political defense? Military defense? Media releases? Then again, the oaths go back before the posse commitatus act.

Marc