As we delve deeper into Devolution, we encounter confusing assertions surrounding the United States military's actions and responsibilities. At the core lies the contention that the military, as a guardian of the nation's security, shoulders a constitutional duty to shield against various threats, whether they be external or internal. Many often draw upon the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which articulates the goal to "provide for the common defense." According to this narrative, military leaders perceived potential foreign interference in the 2020 election as a national emergency and grave menace to national security. Consequently, they hold onto Devolution as the proactive measure to fulfill the military’s oath.

However, scrutinizing these claims necessitates a comprehensive assessment of the military's role within the constitutional framework. While the Constitution indeed assigns the military with the task of defending the nation as its function, it also establishes clear parameters to ensure there is civilian control over the armed forces. Therefore, to assert military action without orders, and doing it without civilian oversight raises significant legal and ethical questions.

Moreover, the implications of such actions extend beyond constitutional legality to encompass broader ethical considerations. Did the military's intervention represent a prudent response to an imminent threat, or did it encroach upon the principle of elected officials and their constitutional governance?

According to Patel Patriot and others who take this theory as doctrine, they perceive the military as having a crucial responsibility in guaranteeing the smooth transition of power. Against the backdrop of allegations surrounding electoral irregularities and foreign interference, their theory suggests that the military saw its mission as preserving the uninterrupted flow of governance. Therefore, the actions were framed as a response to perceived threats to the integrity of the electoral process and, by extension, the stability of the nation. Within concerns about the legitimacy of the electoral outcome and the potential for external meddling, military leaders were obligated to intervene to uphold the constitutional order.

Devolution then paints a picture of military leaders acting out of a sense of duty to protect the nation from perceived existential threats. Their mission was not to subvert the electoral processes but rather to ‘safeguard’ them in the face of unprecedented challenges and uncertainties. As such, proponents argue that the military's involvement in Devolution was driven by a commitment to uphold constitutional principles.

Devolution introduces a contentious notion that the operation unfolded independently from the traditional chain of command which is central to the Department of Defense. This proposition challenges the conventional understanding of military hierarchy and command structure. According to the theory, only a select few individuals at the highest levels of military leadership were aware of Devolution's existence, suggesting a departure from established protocols. There would have been briefings of all involved including the civilian leadership.

The autonomy of these high-ranking military figures and their ability to initiate and oversee such a complex operation without explicit authorization from civilian authorities raises questions. In a hierarchical organization like the Department of Defense, where adherence to chain of command is principal, the idea of senior officers acting unilaterally against the will of the People and orders from the Congress and the president, nor having a special council of judicial review for its implication to implement Devolution seems improbable.

Patel Patriot and others argue that in exceptional circumstances, such as perceived threats to national security, military leaders may deem it necessary to take decisive action independently. They contend that Devolution represents a manifestation of this principle, with military officials assuming a proactive stance to protect the constitutional order. The question of whether high-ranking military figures could orchestrate Devolution outside the established chain of command hinges on the credibility of the theory's claims and the plausibility of such actions within the framework of military governance and the constitution guaranteeing these actions.

Devolution propels us into a realm fraught with legal and ethical dilemmas, compelling us to scrutinize the actions of those involved in safeguarding the nation's constitutional order. At the heart lies this question: Did military operatives, as suggested, operate within the confines of the law, and were their actions guided by constitutional principles?

In assessing the legality of Devolution, we must understand the constitutional provisions, statutes, and legal precedents. The U.S. Constitution vests the President with the authority to command the military as the Commander-in-Chief, while also establishing civilian control over the armed forces. Any deviation from this framework is unconstitutional, violating the constitutional order.

See, Patel Patriot and others’ assertions of covert operations and classified directives prompt scrutiny of their compliance with existing laws and regulations governing government secrecy and national security. Did these actions adhere to the principles of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Constitution, or did they constitute unauthorized and unlawful activities?

Ethically, the actions attributed to military operatives in Devolution demand careful consideration. Operating clandestinely outside the established chain of command raises questions about the military’s leadership and their loyalty, integrity, and the duty to uphold constitutional principles. Were these individuals motivated by a genuine concern for the nation's welfare, or did other factors, such as personal agendas or institutional interests, influence their decisions? We must also contemplate the broader implications for the United States' constitutional values. Devolution, if proven true, challenges the foundational principles of civilian control over the military, transparency in government operations, and the rule of law. It forces us to confront the delicate balance between national security imperatives and constitutional norms, raising profound questions about the nature of democracy and governance in the United States.

Devolution presents a compelling narrative that draws many to it, where the military assumes dual roles as guardians of the Republic and custodians of concealed truths. It invites us to ponder the possibility that military leaders, driven by an unyielding commitment to the Constitution, may have embarked on covert actions against their own government masquerading around the idea to protect the nation.

It portrays the military emerging as a stalwart defender of the nation's foundational principles, entrusted with the solemn duty to ensure the continuity of government, and uphold the integrity of the constitutional order. Yet violating such continuity in the process by warring against its own government. Amidst perceived threats to the nation's security and constitutional processes, military leaders being compelled had to act decisively, even if it meant operating in secrecy.

The rhetoric purports that there lies a profound sense of duty and patriotism, wherein military leaders, imbued with a deep reverence for the Constitution, are willing to risk their reputations and careers to safeguard the nation's interests. Would one who cares about their career really jeopardize it by acting against their employer? Their actions, shrouded in secrecy and veiled in ambiguity, is not perceived as a sacrifice to preserve the constitution and the protection of its citizens, it would be suicidal on their end for their careers and reputations. The motivations and implications of such clandestine activities are not noble intentions behind the military's actions, but an erosion of transparency, accountability, and the Constitution they swore to protect.

We are confronted with profound questions about Devolution and the role of the military in our society, the limits of governmental authority, and the delicate balance between security imperatives and constitutional principles. The truth behind Devolution remains elusive, leaving us to ponder the enduring mysteries of power, secrecy, and the pursuit of national security in an uncertain world.

To continue to Chapter 5 Click Here