Yes, there-fore as New understood his constitution, he was not to don a UN uniform and follow the unconstitutional orders of his commanders by serving under that emblem!
Does the constituion mean what it says, or are we, as it has been accelerating since Clintonious, reduced to for-ever arguing about shifts of nuance and meaning? New argues from a very black and white basic interpretation of the language, the army tries to say “well yeah the constitution but we’ll supply the interpretation which mean you follow the orders of the president even if he is acting from a transnational point of view”.
That point of view doesn’t wash with me, and I hope there will be many more “News” if they keep pushing that UN !thing!
In other words, he is a moron who does not understand the Constitution.
Being too stupid to read is not a defense against insubordination.
Does the constituion mean what it says
Yes.
And it says that Congress has the power to enter into treaties on the behalf of the Federal Government and sign them into US law.
It also says that the President is the executive charged with enforcing the laws authorized by Congress.
It also says that the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
I don't care if you or Michael New don't like the fact that Congress, using the authority expressly granted to it under the Constitution, signed the UN Charter committing the US to UN missions as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Forgot this part.
New is not arguing from any interpretation of the US Constitution, black white or green.
He has absolutely no Constitutional basis to refuse his orders.
The Army is not "supplying an interpretation" - Congress is authorized by the Constitution to sign treaties. The Executive, which controls the military, is authorized by the Constitution to enforce the treaties Congress signs.
It isn't complicated.
Looks like he understood wrong, doesn't it?