[OldDeckHand]

"his challenge was presented incorrectly and subsequently without standing?"

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking, but the eligibility of any of his commanders may not necessarily be material to the lawfulness of order. It's a little complicated, but the case law surrounding such circumstances is fairly straightforward - so long as an officer is only exercising authority that is inherent in the office he holds, that authority is legally binding even though the officer himself may be holding the office by some defect.

More to Lakin's particular circumstance, he's questioning the authority of the President to issue order - a man that is about as far removed from his commander officer as you can get. People have tried to make similar arguments before - that presidents were issuing illegal orders - that have gone NOWHERE. I doubt this case will be any different.

[BIGLOOK]

I was simply noting that a Courts Martial was the wrong venue to use to challenge the eligibility of the CIC. Those in Lakin’s chain of command cannot be found complicit in anyway issuing illegal orders in his deployment.

The key to resolving 'eligibility' issue lies at the court room's steps of the individual states, whose election officer or Lt. Governor gave a pass allowing his name to be placed on the ballot in that state, whether through complicity, omission, dereliction, intimidation or ...gullibility. (Is gullibility a misdemeanor or a felony? Hmmm...)

It's really up to a case of merit reaching a state's court to subpoena and examine credentials and rule on a case of fraud, however far it goes up and down the food chain and at the very least, prevent his name ever being printed on an election ballot again.

Best case scenario, that this happens in enough of the state's to deny an election by the Electoral College of him or another like him.

This of course would mean a 'political' civil war....BWTH....we're already there!

( I always enjoy our exchanges.....they're edifying.)