“This isn’t even a close call. Barack Obama is the President. Military officers don’t get to question if his election was valid or if he’s fit for command. This Army officer will lose and his attorney has exposed him to prosecution under several Articles of the UCMJ.”
I respectfully disagree with you. An officer CAN question the lawfulness of an order. The source of that order is one thing that determines its lawfulness. IF President Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be POTUS, THEN any orders issued by him or flowing out of his decisions then become unlawful because the source was not lawful.
An Army Officer takes the following oath:
“I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
Notice that an Army Officer’s allegiance is to the Constitution. IF he/she has sincere concerns about matters (orders) pertaining to the Constitution....then the Constitution is his/her guide. An Officer is COMMISSIONED by act of Congress. Now notice the following enlisted oath of office:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Notice the significant differences in the oaths. Enlisted specifically say, “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.....” You don’t find that wording in a COMMISSIONED Officer’s Oath.
Don’t pilor this Major. His intentions are good....to Support and Defend the Constitution. That is what is driving this whole thing.
IF President Obama was to simply stop stalling and produce proof of Natural Born status.....then the Major would have no grounds to question a POTUS directive.
President Obama needs to produce the proof and stop all the speculation. IF he is NOT qualified...he needs to step down. IF he IS qualified, the rest of us need to shut up about this issue. IMO, the ball is in the President’s court.
BTW - OldDeckHand - I was a “Sea Lawyer” a long time ago.:-)
I hadn't realized that the Major is a reservist. That buys him a little latitude with this course of action because, until July 15 at 0800, he's technically still a civilian. The Major faces an uphill battle, in the extreme. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the grounds upon which a CO status can be claimed and approved are fairly narrow and well defined. No where in the legal definition of CO, does the statute provide for a claim on the grounds that "The President really isn't the President". I am dubious that any court will expand the defintion to include such a claim.
Lastly, while you're absolutely correct (as I pointed out in earlier posts), that an officer, NCO or enlisted uniformed service member has the right and even obligation to challenge an unlawful order, they do NOT have the right or prerogative to challenge national command authority. That is a specific term with a specific legal meaning and weight. Challenging command authority is also known as insubordination. The Major recieved deployment orders. Those orders came from the Secretary of Defense, a man who was confirmed for that job twice in the last four years. They're legal orders, of that their can be no argument.
I appreciate your service and your input as a "sea lawyer".