Military Power

below is the Oath of Enlistment for the armed forces of the United States:

I, (NAME), 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.

I have a few questions...

1) Do atheists still have to say " So help me God."?

2) If the Constitution of the United States, the orders of the President of the United States, or the orders of the officers appointed over the individual. are in conflict with each other, what/who takes precedence?

3) Would an order, given by a commanding officer, that directly contradicts the Constitution of the United States (say, for instance, the 2nd Amendment) constitute the commanding officer being a "domestic enemy"?

There has been some controversy about whether the phrase "So help me God" is mandatory. I know there have been officers that allow enlistees to omit these words, if they choose, according to their religious preference and beliefs. However, federal law does not appear to make any part of the oath optional. See United States Code TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 31, § 502.

Luther Sloan wrote:
1) Do atheists still have to say " So help me God."?

Surely if someone is prepared to quibble over four little words in the oath, then there must be a question mark over their suitability to enlist in the first place. If a person cannot accept the first requirement made of him (or her), then what will be their reaction if faced with a far more unpleasant order or situation?.

Luther Sloan wrote:2) If the Constitution of the United States, the orders of the President of the United States, or the orders of the officers appointed over the individual. are in conflict with each other, what/who takes precedence?

I would have to say the order of precedence would be the following:
1) the Constitution of the United States
2) the President of the United States (commander-in-chief of the armed forces)
3) superior officers

Goliath wrote:
I would have to say the order of precedence would be the following:
1) the Constitution of the United States
2) the President of the United States (commander-in-chief of the armed forces)
3) superior officers

Oh Yeah!-Well just try telling your Sergeant Major that you can't obey his orders because it is unconstitutional and just see what that does to your future career prospects (Grin)

Hobilar wrote:Oh Yeah!-Well just try telling your Sergeant Major that you can't obey his orders because it is unconstitutional and just see what that does to your future career prospects (Grin)

Funny, the "I was just following orders" defense was determined not to be a defense in Neuremburg.

Maximus the Destroyer wrote:
Funny, the "I was just following orders" defense was determined not to be a defense in Neuremburg.

Does the oath not say 'and the orders of the officers appointed over me'?

You can't run an Army/Navy/Air Force (delete as appropriate) with everybody being permitted to run around saying they are not going to obey lawful orders because they believe it to be unconstitutional. It would cause a complete and utter breakdown of discipline.

Yes, it does say 'and the orders of the officers appointed over me', but it also says 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States'.

If the orders are unconstitutional, they can't be very lawful orders, hence the reason for the question about precedence.