What, are you speaking "newspeak" already?
You are asking the military to violate their oaths, since you are asking them to do something they are not most emphatically NOT constitutionally authorized to do, namely, to challange the civilian branches of government in their determination of the president's legitimacy.
If that be the case, then pray tell How do they know when they are defending the constitution if they are not allowed to hear anything but what other people tell them it means? When must blind robots open their eyes?
Perhaps in your mind that should be the case, but it most ephatically is not. Nothing in the constitition gives the military the authority to make a determination about their commander's legitimacy. That is the job of the electors, the legislature, the judiciary, and, ultimately, the people.
Ergo, Nothing in the Constitution gives the military the authority to make a determination about any Constitutional question, n'est-ce pas? They are to do what they are told by the Robot above them.
For the military to contravene the determination of two civilian branches of government, plus the electoral college, and the voters to boot, would be a violation of their constitutional oath of the grossest sort, if not outright treason.
What contravening? Asking for proof of legitimacy, (something which ALL the civilian agencies FAILED to do) is Treason? Again, why do you think the tail should wag the dog? Why is it too much to ask the little man-child for proof of legitimacy as opposed to requiring the most powerful Military force in the world to ignore their defense of our governing document?
Geeze, it's like giving Denis the Menace the keys to the Death Star, and you're okay with it. The Military mustn't Question little Dennis.
I never said the military are only allowed to hear what other people tell them what the constitution means. Nor did I ever say they must be mere blind robots.
My point is that the military must defer to the judgement of the civilian branches when there is a dispute on a constitutional matter.
For it to be otherwise would be to put the military's judgement above that of the civilian branches of government, thereby destroying the fundamental principle of civilian contorl.
If a military officer believes he is being ordered by the civilian authority to committ an unconstitutional act, than his duty is is resign in protest and take his case to the people.
Ergo, Nothing in the Constitution gives the military the authority to make a determination about any Constitutional question, n'est-ce pas?
Not on a disputed question that has already been decided by the civilian branches of government, as in this case.
What contravening? Asking for proof of legitimacy, (something which ALL the civilian agencies FAILED to do) is Treason?
Refusing to follow lawful orders until being given what an officer thinks constitutes, in his judgment, satisfactory proof does constitute an act of contraveneing the judgement of both Congress and the electoral college, who have already found Obama to be proven legitimate to their satisfaction.
Again, why do you think the tail should wag the dog? Why is it too much to ask the little man-child for proof of legitimacy as opposed to requiring the most powerful Military force in the world to ignore their defense of our governing document?
Because it goes against the Constitution, which gives the power of vetting the president-elect to the electoral college and Congress alone.
For the military to demand proof to its satisfaction would constitute a usurpation of power not granted to it.
Geeze, it's like giving Denis the Menace the keys to the Death Star, and you're okay with it. The Military mustn't Question little Dennis.
That's exactly right. We are not Chile. We are not Turkey. We are not Fascist Spain. The people, acting through the electoral college and their elected representatives in Congress are fully sovereign. The military is the servant of these institutions of the people, and it has no business questionting their judgements.
The military has no business contrvening the will of the poeple, even if they decide to elect someone like Dennis the Menace to the presidency.