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.
The "presumption of innocence" and the burden of proof on a prosecutor in a criminal trial does not imply that a person elected to the Presidency must be presumed to be eligible.
The fact that a Democratic Congress permits Obama's records to remain hidden is the problem; it is not the solution to the problem.
In my life, Nixon came perilously close to undermining the rule of law and bringing about a critical national emergency. Had he refused to obey the Supreme Court's decision to turn over the tapes, we could have found ourselves in a situation where armed soldiers would bar entry to the White House by an officer of the Supreme Court attempting to retrieve evidence of a crime.
Would you have U.S. soldiers forcibly bar an officer of the Supreme Court from the White House by following "lawful" orders of their commanders stemming from orders from Nixon?
Had Nixon refused the orders of the Supreme Court, I was prepared to march on Washington myself. Would U.S. soldiers be justified in barring me from carrying out the orders of the Supreme Court?
Preservation of order is not a higher purpose than preservation of the Constitution. My freedom can survive disorder; it cannot survive violation of the Constitution.