Then I hope you are intellectually honest and said the EXACT same thing about the combat-evaders that sued George Bush because they didn't want to go fight an "unconstitutional" war. Your argument is the EXACT same argument they made.
Their argument was that the war was facially unconstitutional, and all the levers of government power didn't do their jobs in stopping Bush, so they had to martyr themselves.
If you're going to make a political point, take off the uniform. Otherwise, show-up, shut-up and do your job.
I don’t mind people making their case. Since the congress supported the war, I have no problem with it being legal. If you play the game, you have to be prepared to lose. This guy is doing what honest people should do. How can you go and support killing people when the order may be given by someone who a fraud? The joint chiefs all the way down the line should take the same position. If there is no answer, then resign or do what this guy did.
I was just following orders... "Nuremberg Defense." yeah that's the ticket..
Who besides military personnel would have standing to question the Constitutionality of a war fought without an official declaration of war?
If the system rules out anybody who COULD “petition the government for a redress of grievances” then it has indirectly abridged that right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That’s why Roe v Wade was decided (albeit very badly) even though the issue was moot for Jane Roe by the time SCOTUS heard the case. There was nobody LEFT who had standing. The court said that because there never COULD be anybody left with standing because the appeals process takes longer than a pregnancy they would hear the case on behalf of those who would otherwise have no opportunity for due process.
IOW, if we don’t want our military asking the “political” questions, then we need to allow somebody else to have “standing” to ask those questions. If it’s already been decided that the Constitution doesn’t require a declaration of war before we go to war, then it should be simple for a lower court to simply say that.
It seems absolutely crazy to me that a person can sue a company for not posting a warning on the stepladder that juggling cows while standing on your head on the top rung of the ladder could be dangerous.... and yet NOBODY can sue to find out whether the President elect actually qualified by Jan 20th as required by the 20th Amendment, or to find out what limits the Constitution places on combat operations without a declaration of war.
Something is CLEARLY wrong with our way of measuring “standing”.