Agree. But has it ever been codified? It for sure doesn't spell it out in the Constitution. I mean we can read papers by the relevent authorities from the time frame when the Constitution was written and ratified but it isn't the same as there being a clear legal precedent to rely on.
Much of my argument rests on this obviously. If it has clearly been demonstrated (to quote myself) in the past, this is a relevent precedent. I don't believe it ever has though. And because of this I don't believe the issue is clear enough where I want soldiers disobeying orders over it. I think both items of discussion are a very serious issue. The legitimacy of the President and the military following the directives given to it. Very serious.
Personally, I would like to see this definition determined and codified into law so that is clear in the future.
It is not required that a precedent be in place in order to bring a suit and cause a decision to be made. That is what these suits are all about. And this administration seems to be all about squashing them in every way possible.
In one respect I like what this officer did. (this thread is one of my shoe-on-the-other-foot experiences). He placed himself in a position to receive the orders to be able to contest them. In an earlier post I argued this as inappropriate. In retrospect, it is probably the least problematic way for an officer to do this – for the military, not for him – obviously. And, as also previously mentioned, it paves the way for others in the military to bring suit, possibly w/ fewer repercussions. As the sheer weight of those signing on to a suit grows the government will have no choice.
Obama promised transparency. Let’s have some.