The oath says to support and defend, not interpret.
The first amendment gives him a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Petition is one thing. Refusing to obey the orders of his commanding officer and other superior officers in the chain of command is another. Just as in the civilian world, the 1st Amendment gives you the right to petition the government but does not give you the right to break the law while doing so.
But you swore to support and defend the Constitution, didn't you?? You did not swear to support and defend someone else's interpretation of that Constitution, right???
Did you read the Constitution before you took the oath???
Did you understand your oath before you took your oath??? Did you interpret your oath before you took it or did you rely on someone else to interpret your oath for you??? What the hell good was your oath or anything else issuing forth from you???
Sorry, but this is a nonsense response ... almost a non-sequitir. How do you support and defend the Constitution without 'interpreting' it??
Petition is one thing. Refusing to obey the orders of his commanding officer and other superior officers in the chain of command is another. Just as in the civilian world, the 1st Amendment gives you the right to petition the government but does not give you the right to break the law while doing so.
There is an inherent conflict in this situation between Constitutional law and military law. In effect, Lakin would be breaking the law by obeying the orders as are the rest of our military, by failing to demand full disclosure from the pretender-in-chief. Let's call it civil disobedience in order to call proper attention to a major infraction (pun intended).