I agree. However, neither Larkin nor the yahoo who this thread is about has been given an unconstitutional order.
To LEGITIMATE civilian government. Subservience to ILLEGITIMATE government is a violation of their duty.
It is not the military's duty to determine the legitimacy of the presidency. That is the duty of Congress and the electoral college. Both have determined him to be legitimate. The military has no authority to contravene that determiantion.
To have it any other way would be to turn our republic into a military dictatorship, which is what you seem to advocate.
Under YOUR theory of governance, how would they ever know the difference?
It is not the military's duty to determine the legitimacy of the presidency. That is the duty of Congress and the electoral college. Both have determined him to be legitimate. The military has no authority to contravene that determiantion.
Again, it isn't contravening when it is their duty. The Civilian system is falling apart. Just because it can't do it's job doesn't mean the Military shouldn't do theirs.
To have it any other way would be to turn our republic into a military dictatorship, which is what you seem to advocate.
Requiring the Military to demand proof of eligibility would make us a Dictatorship? We are closer than ever before because they DIDN'T do it. A Legitimate President would not be afraid to prove it. Only an illegitimate one, who has managed to trick all the government officials (a not too bright bunch on a good day) to let him in without a ticket, would be afraid to produce his evidence.
Cats run, Dogs chase. Dogs don't run, they sniff butts. Obama runs. He's a cat.