Here's an example of the sort of thing I tire of. . .
In the course of a recent immigration debate, I heard a retired soldier recite part an oath he claimed required him to protect the country "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The foreign enemies, he claimed, were the illegal immigrants, while the domestic enemies were American businessmen who hired them.
While I think the man's point of view is unreasonable, it deserves examination, because I don't think he is alone.
It is one thing to call illegal immigration a foreign invasion, because there have been instances of Mexican soldiers actually crossing the border. But it's far from being a hot war. President Bush regularly cavorts with the president of Mexico and wants good relations between the two countries. Congress has the power to declare war, and the President, as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, is the one who would order any military response against Mexico. Neither he nor Congress are anywhere near doing that. If in fact the aliens are enemies, what does that make the president and the Congress? Traitors?
Are the Constitution and its powers relevant?
Let's take a look at the military oath the retired soldier cited. The enlisted version:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
The officer's version is somewhat different but the "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" part is identical.
Who gets to decide whether and when illegal immigrants become enemies of the Constitution? The individual soldier?
As to the Constitution's domestic enemies, I'm having a bit of trouble articulating any conceivable theory under which businessmen who hire illegal aliens might be considered to be attacking the Constitution. Even if we assume that they are violating the law and should go to jail, since when is crime an attack on the Constitution? If businessmen hiring aliens are enemies of the Constitution, then wouldn't bank robber Willie Sutton have also been an enemy of the Constitution?
I think an arguable case can be made that nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to regulate private businesses. Where is the enumerated power allowing the feds to tell a citizen whom he can and cannot hire? If those laws are unconstitutional, then arguably, the enemies of the Constitution would be those who passed and enforced the unconstitutional laws, and not those accused of breaking them. Under this analysis, who would be more of an enemy of the Constitution: a supporter of unconstitutional laws, or someone who violates them? (While my constitutional argument may be a stretch by today's standards, I don't think it's nearly as much of a stretch as that of the soldier.)
I hate to sound like a condescending lawyerly type, but I'm wondering how carefully the soldier read his oath. Or the Constitution.
posted by Eric on 04.05.06 at 01:22 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3478
Comments
At the risk of perpetrating my own brand of condescension, Eric, the UCMJ doesn't forbid having an opinion. And since you're referring to a retired soldier--a civilian--the UCMJ not longer applies to him anyway and he can express his opinions in whatever manner he likes.
That this ex soldier doesn't have the power to *officially declare* someone an enemy has no bearing on whether he can opine on the existence of an enmity between us and another group.
You also wonder whether this ex-soldier would consider the president and Congress traitors because they don't see things his way. I suspect that this soldier is probably more nuanced in his thinking that you give him credit for: he's probably willing to be convinced that his opinion is an incorrect one before he goes off all half-cocked about the gov't being 'turncoats' or some such nonsense.
Thanks Juliette. Of course the man has as much right to his opinion as do I. I just disagree with his interpretation of his oath, whether it's applicable or not (which, by bringing it up, he seemed to think it is).
I don't think it is helpful in these debates to characterize people -- especially Americans -- as enemies of the Constitution (or of the United States). I have friends who employ workers whose status is probably illegal, and if this retired military guy considers them enemies of the United States, then he can consider me an enemy too.
I don't think it's helpful. But the First Amendment allows anyone to declare me an enemy -- just as it allows me to do the same. The fact that I try not to do that does not obligate anyone else to do the same. (Something I always need to remind myself.)
I see hundreds of thousands of people marching through American cities. They did not enter the country legally. They declare the law of this land null and void. They march under a flag of a foreign country, and explicitly claim the land is theirs and not part of the United States. If they were American Citizens it would be rebellion. Since they aren't, they are what? Invaders? So it seems to this simple man, happily unlearned in the law.
igout · April 6, 2006 12:44 PM
"They declare the law of this land null and void. They march under a flag of a foreign country, and explicitly claim the land is theirs and not part of the United States."
Come on, man. You saw no such thing. You saw hundreds of thousands of people marching, a tiny minority of them carrying Mexian flags. SOME, NOT MOST, but beyong that you can't say, have claimed the land is theirs... Don't overdramatize it.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
At the risk of perpetrating my own brand of condescension, Eric, the UCMJ doesn't forbid having an opinion. And since you're referring to a retired soldier--a civilian--the UCMJ not longer applies to him anyway and he can express his opinions in whatever manner he likes.
That this ex soldier doesn't have the power to *officially declare* someone an enemy has no bearing on whether he can opine on the existence of an enmity between us and another group.
You also wonder whether this ex-soldier would consider the president and Congress traitors because they don't see things his way. I suspect that this soldier is probably more nuanced in his thinking that you give him credit for: he's probably willing to be convinced that his opinion is an incorrect one before he goes off all half-cocked about the gov't being 'turncoats' or some such nonsense.