There isn't anything lawful about having a Commander-in-Chief who isn't eligible to exercise that command.
Our Founders detested the idea of a standing army. The Militia was expected to ensure that the state was secure. If the Militia takes up arms to oppose a standing army that is commanded by a usurper, doesn't the Militia have an obligation to remove that usurper? How would armed opposition to the Militia by the standing army preserve, support, and defend the Constitution?
To suggest that any order to the army which is not on its face "unlawful" must be obeyed, regardless of who is Commander-in-Chief, is to disregard the oath taken by our soldiers. The oath is to the Constitution, not to the chain-of-command.
I don't see the obligation of the average soldier to judge the authority of his command as being any different than the obligation of a juror to have the final say on the law as well as the facts in a criminal trial.
I never intend to vote for conviction of a person for keeping and bearing arms regardless of the "lawfulness" of a judge's instructions.
I recently recorded the movie "Judgement at Nuremburg" which details the convictions of German judges for their crimes which were, in some cases, completely "legal".
If a court-martial is the expected outcome for a soldier disobeying a "lawful" but unConstitutional order, then that is the course his oath demands.
Our 535 elected representatives, in performance of their constitutional duty, ruled that Obama was President.
Can they usurp the constitution? Well, yes, so much as we and the courts allow them. But until proven otherwise, Obama is the duly sworn President.
Do you really believe that the Court, even if it DID decide that Obama was not constitutionally qualified, and therefore had him removed from office, would rule that his actions while in office have no effect? That would be an impossible ruling. At this point, Obama as presumed to be qualified, and actions are taken based on that presumption, and the presumption has the force of law and the approval of the branch of government (legislative) tasked with ruling on the authority of the President.
Absent a court ruling that Obama is NOT president, I can’t see how anybody would accept that a soldier could independently decide not to obey lawful orders, and insist on being allowed a court date about the issue.
Sure, in this case those arguing the point seem to actually believe Obama is not qualified. But there is no evidence yet of that. Any challenge at this point is at the same place as a left-wing soldier in 2001 refusing to deploy because he thought Bush had not won Florida, and requesting a court case to force Bush to prove he did.
Any soldier, at any time, being allowed to refuse an order pending a court challenge about the president would be an untenable situation.
You cannot support this asinine premise.