Im curious - if martial law is defined in the Constitution (as it is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution), how then can one claim to be defending the Constitution by refusing to obey martial law, which is clearly defined by the Constitution? This is an obvious logical fallacy that reveals motivations other than defending the Constitution. So, why not be honest and state those reasons and motivations as opposed to hiding behind a fallacious assertion that contains within it a semantic contradiction?
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:12:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015