[shibumi]

It should be “sufficiently scholarly” for the defense to point out that an officer’s oath is to the Constitution, not the Chain of Command.

The Chain of Command holds its authority only when in compliance with the Constitution. Any variance from that standard sets the Chain of Command as a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

It is therefore incumbent upon the officer to DISobey any orders issued therefrom.

Discovery of compliance with the Constitution by the Chain of Command is not ~an~ issue, it’s the ONLY issue.

[Uncle Chip]

Discovery of compliance with the Constitution by the Chain of Command is not ~an~ issue, it’s the ONLY issue.

Exactly --

[Non-Sequitur]

The Chain of Command holds its authority only when in compliance with the Constitution. Any variance from that standard sets the Chain of Command as a domestic enemy of the Constitution. It is therefore incumbent upon the officer to DISobey any orders issued therefrom.

And when given a chance to outline that position and provide documentation to support it, the defense apparently punted. Hence the ruling.