It is Martial.
Hope no servicemember is betting their career (or freedom) on this one paying out.
Your answer would be correct. And the UCMJ doesn’t have an appeal process to the USSC.
Not military, but... I have a bit of common sense.
Anyone trying to dodge service - especially using this as a justification - would be in a world of hurt.
An Army MP (Airborne, too, I think) used to live a couple doors down from me. I’d rather not imagine what he looks like while doing his job. ;)
Yep, and domestic.
Ever wonder why that was put in there? Curiously, it is not in the President's oath, which is specified in the Constitution, but is in the oath taken by both military and civil officers, of both the US and the states, including legislators and judicial officers, (lawyers and judges, I watched both my daughter and son in law take a very similar oath, as newly licensed lawyers/officers of the court). In fact the requirement for such an oath comes from the Constitution itself:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
While the enlisted oath speaks of 'obeying orders', the officers oath does not. See The Oath of Office from the Air War College. The officer's oath has not changed since 1868, and the "foreign and domestic" part was put in in 1862. The language was not added to the enlisted oath until 1962, although before then the oath was to "The United States" and against "against all their enemies whomsoever;" or similar language in earlier versions.
This is going to be fun.
Plenty of people felt that Iraq was a bad idea, and that the President didn't have the authority to conduct said war, since War had not been declared formally by Congress. I was involved in arguements along this line. In Iraq. I understand that some people will always look for a legal escape to a political disagreement.
So, your reservist friend can grumble and complain all he likes, but unless he intends on becoming a fugitive, the law will compel him to serve at the discretion of his Commander in Chief.
I am interested to hear what local legal militias have to say about this, also should even more be organized in the name of defending the Constitution?
I personally do not believe in obeying a person who bought his position over me with money, lies and insufficient background, it would be exactly the same as surrendering to a hostile force.
And I would tend to think that if an event were to happen such as Obama orders the NG or Armed Forces to interfere domestically in a crisis and civilians were killed and subsequently Obama was impeached because of ineligibility would those soldiers be then tried for murder? Or if they refused to follow orders what would be the consequences?
I wouldn't. Leavenworth gets hotter than hell in the summer.
It is Martial.
He can join Michael New.