I am right. Look up the definition of "public officer."
Me: I never said the military aren't allowed to understand the constitution.
It's an axiomatic component of your argument.
No it's not.
If they are not permitted to judge constitutionality, how can they defend it when they aren't allowed to comprehend it?
They are allowed to make judgements, but where there is a dispute, they must defer the determination of the civilian branches of government. If it were otherwise, we would be living in a military dictatorship.
You are funny. I'm sure President Jackson consulted your dictionary.
They are allowed to make judgements, but where there is a dispute, they must defer the determination of the civilian branches of government. If it were otherwise, we would be living in a military dictatorship.
There have been no determinations of the civilian branches of government because the issue hasn't been weighed. Every attempt to weigh it is fought back with lawyers tricks and deceit. The Civilian responsibility has been interdicted, and rendered inoperable.
If you fear a Military dictatorship, one would think you would be advocating for the Civilian branches whom you claim have responsibility to address the issue so as to preclude the possibility that the military might see the necessity of having to do it themselves, yet here you are, always advocating that this must NOT be checked, and it must NOT be adjudicated.
One would think that you fear a civilian deciding of the question more than the possibility of a military dictatorship, given all your opposition to civilians getting to the bottom of the issue.
So which is it? Do you want the civilians to get to the truth, or would you prefer that the Military quit obeying him till he presents his real credentials? Something tells me the common denominator with you is that you want NO ONE to question his eligibility regardless of who they are.