The officer that gave the order was promoted to his current rank and authority by a board of officers under Obama’s predicessor and confirmed by congress.
Almost all of the current senior officers directly nominated to their positions by the SecDef on behalf of President Bush. and confirmed by that congress.
Unless you are saying that all officers require reconfirmation [they do not] or that Gates was not eligible, then your argument is incorrect.
Try reading the oath and UCMJ.
Even if Obama is ineligable, it is inmaterial to his failure to obey a lawful order.
Obama did not give him his order, A uniformed officer gave that order.
Presidents rarely give orders and when they do it is to the SecDef or JCS. They give orders in their own rights as to the details.
What you are arguing is called Solicitation to Mutney under military law and can carry the death penelty. Part of the Treason Laws...
Also, in the US, there is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
President Obama has not been charged or found guilty of the fraud claimed.
That poor excuse for an officer has broken the law no matter how you read it.
He has declared himself judge and jury over the eligibility of the President, found him guilty, and refused lawfull orders by other senior commisioned officers over an order that Obama never even saw...
You are arguing for anarchy rules.
That is not a precident you want, unless you wish for a military dictatorship...
>The officer that gave the order was promoted to his current rank and authority by a board of officers under Obama’s predicessor and confirmed by congress.
>
>Almost all of the current senior officers directly nominated to their positions by the SecDef on behalf of President Bush. and confirmed by that congress.
So, how is this relevant?
>Unless you are saying that all officers require reconfirmation [they do not] or that Gates was not eligible, then your argument is incorrect.
Actually that was EXACTLY the case in the early history of the United States.
> Try reading the oath and UCMJ.
The Oath of Enlistment for the Army, National Guard {because it is slightly more complex; and so includes all the regular army’s would}:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (state name) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (state name) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
Even if Obama is ineligable, it is inmaterial to his failure to obey a lawful order.
Note the ordering here: The Constitutions are FIRST AND FOREMOST, and the oath is to support and defend *THEM* against all enemies, of whatever origin.
Secondly: this is followed with a reaffirmation of those Constitutions — “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
Note:
al-le-giance –noun
1. — the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign.
2. — loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.
{ The second definition fits perfectly with no mental gymnastics, the first if you consider the Constitution to be the sovereign [ruler of the country]. }
Thirdly: the orders of the president [in federal activation] and the governor [otherwise] AND the officers appointed over me are connected... (with the ‘and’).
Fourth: The orders mentioned in the third-point are qualified as being those that are in conformance with the Law and Regulation... again, the Constitution is the Supreme law if the United States.
Fifth: “So help me God.” — An acknowledgment of humility and our inability to perfectly and completely abide by this oath; God is the only one that CAN help/enable one to keep such a weighty oath. / We are human and need God’s help for even this.
>Obama did not give him his order, A uniformed officer gave that order.
See the above.
>Presidents rarely give orders and when they do it is to the SecDef or JCS. They give orders in their own rights as to the details.
So, are you saying that the President would not be responsible if he heard his Secretary of Defense give a contra-constitutional order and allowed it by refusing to countermand it?
>What you are arguing is called Solicitation to Mutney under military law and can carry the death penelty. Part of the Treason Laws...
I love it when adherence to my oath of enlistment, and the Constitution-as-supreme-law, are Treason!
[/sarc]
PS - Thomas Jefferson said the following, which can be applied even to MILITARY governance:
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”