I don't know. I mean, I think it's clear enough for civilians to dispute it. But the military has to be held to a different standard. The problem is, there has never been a process in place where the incoming CinC shows his papers and is officially vetted by some constitutionally supervised authority.
This is the root of the military angle of this whole BC thing in a nutshell. Because I definitely do seperate the civilian world from the military realm in this issue. I think each realm has its own legitimate courses of action.
Because there has never been an 'official definition' of 'natural born citizen' it necessarily means the issue is not clear from a military standpoint. As I see it, until that issue is definitely decided, all the military man has to rely upon is the normal course of things- was he elected, yes. Was he sworn in? Yes. Has he taken up the reins of government? Yes. Have all the other branches of govenment recognised him as President? Yes. These are all tangible things that the soldier can look at and see. What else that is actual and demonstrable does the soldier have to go on? By all those previous questions, he has no reason to question the legitimacy of Obama as commander. His only real question comes with something that has never been defined, that it is not clear how it would be defined if the situation went to court (our views on the subject notwithstanding) and that no other part of the government has even brought up as a legitimate issue. I think, by this standard, the officer must obey the order, particularly when the order itself is a legal one.
I mean, we can't just have soldiers guarding nukes walk off their posts because of something that has never even been properly defined. Surely nobody here is advocating that? Surely nobody is advocating that it would be correct for sailors to abandon, say, an aircraft carrier? I mean, we need to think seriously about what the ramifications of this are. If it's ok for Cook to do it, it's ok for every soldier to do it. We can't just have soldiers walking away from their posts. Not in my opinion anyway.
It is ok for the CIC who has his finger on the nuclear trigger, yet he has never been properly defined?
Indeed we must.
You state, "the military has to be held to a different standard".
That standard is, and always has been, the Constitution of the United States. The Courts have made clear that no part of the Constitution may be found to have no effect. Our Founders included various things because our Founders decided that such things were sufficiently important to include.
Our military has no duty whatever to obey the orders of a "Commander-in-Chief" who is not eligible to hold that office. The reason for the eligibility requirement is to protect the interests of the people of the United States. That interest is further protected by the military refusing to follow the orders of anyone ineligible to command.
The lack of an "official definition" does not reduce the applicability of the eligibility requirement. The Courts have the power to clarify the meaning of the requirement and will do so when presented with a case. The only way to get the case is for those who are unconvinced to challenge their orders.
Those military who sincerely doubt Obama's eligibility are duty bound to challenge his orders. Our military should not have been put into the position of having doubts.