Please do not mistake my point for being disrespectful to you, but we did not accept this argument when the German Generals made it at the Nuremberg trials.
My understanding of this event in history is that it established the principle that certain orders must be disobeyed even if given by the proper authorities, and such orders fall in the category of immoral and contrary to natural law.
The notion that any order from the President must be obeyed would make of him a dictator, and thereby obviate the very government the Military is sworn to defend.
If you wish to make competing constitutional issues out of it, you have to consider what Abraham Lincoln said.
Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
If the President tells you to do something blatantly wrong, you can tell the President "No." You may be punished for doing it, but it is every officer's duty to put the lives of his troops before any trivial concern such as social engineering.
I completely agree on your points. But I’ve got to bring up the same point as before. As long as he is president, he has the law and the Constitution on his side. You can say no. And you can openly defy his answer. But you can’t stop it by saying no. You are stuck with it until he is removed from office because he is within his position to do what he is doing. And as a military officer, you can also cut off your nose despite your face. You say you won’t, they will find someone who will. Happens all the time. And you go to confinement for 20 years for Article 92 or be considered treasonous and spent a lifetime in there. But nothing will change that way.
It’s the same thing as with the creating of the rule in the senate which said a lame duck president couldn’t nominate a chief justice. But the Constitution was never changed so if they want to shut that process down this year, they have to tell a lie and see that his nominee won’t reach the docket. But they have no outright law that they can use to bring it to a halt. It has to be done in covert ways, not above board.
Oh, don’t be worried about disrespecting me with your kind and eloquent words. It is what a discussion is all about. But, please understand, I don’t disagree with what you want to accomplish, I just understand that it is not within the rules of the Constitution and cannot be handled in an upright manner. I can, also, remember when Reid wouldn’t let bills or discussions get to the senate floor for liberal reasons, we thought it was wrong and the incorrect way to handle things.
Lincoln was right in what he said, but you’ll notice there was no attempted change to the Constitution to give the military an option to say no. His was a speech. Not a rule. In a lot of ways, I can understand his position. But changing processes questionable, and I feel dishonestly, is exactly what got us into the problems across the board we have now. Hopefully with a new face and mind in the POTUS position, one that isn’t more interested in himself and what his party can squeeze out of the populous, we might be able to get back on track. We are still the most powerful country on earth. And we did it with rules. We need to stay that way so everyone plays by the same ones all the time.
red
DiogenesLamp
The disobeying of an order for a military member falls under Article 92 of the UCMJ. The only way an order can be refused is if it is an illegal order, the main two being the possible destruction of life and limb or priority one resources.
Enlistment oath:
“I,____________, 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 the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”
Now, if he is within the law, he can order you to do what he wants and if you refuse, you pay the penalty. You can only refuse “unlawful orders.”
There is nothing in the system to stop him from ordering the action of starting the process to transition women into the combat units. It is not an unlawful order and must be obeyed by the military until it is determined to be. I wasn’t talking about unlawful orders, just the lawful ones. ?Whether I agree with him is not for me to decide. I have no say in it. So until they can prove it is unlawful, it will gain punishment for refusal.
I do, however, have a way to help the situation. Women have not been expected to compete with men in the annual physical aptitude tests for many years. Why not start there. Not only will it eliminate women not even close to the capacity needed to handle combat positions, but it will send them out of the military for not meeting standards like many men. This can be a slippery slope for women. All military people physically will require the same tests. If they fail at the standards men are using now to be able to stay in and go after jobs, then they will have earned their chance. Just like the men!
red