Replies

The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

The oath is as follows:

"I, (state your 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{{, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees)}} and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

Watada swore to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, which requires him by extension (he says) to not violate the UN Charter, since the US Constitution gives equal weight to treaties as it does to itself.

I don't know if he would accept the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of Constitutional conflicts.

"Today, I speak with you about a radical idea," Watada told the gathering. "That to stop an illegal and unjust war, soldiers can choose to stop fighting it... If soldiers realised this war is contrary to what the constitution extols -- if they stood up and threw their weapons down -- no president could ever initiate a war of choice again. When we say, '...Against all enemies foreign and domestic', what if elected leaders became the enemy? Whose orders do we follow? The answer is the conscience that lies in each soldier, each American, and each human being. Our duty to the constitution is an obligation, not a choice."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0109-01.htm

I see a problem with this approach, if affirmed by the SC: soldiers framing convenient interpretations of the Constitution have an easy out.