That's the sum total of the depth of your analysis? Given the question, that's about all that was justified. You're the one who suggested that the chain of command trumps the Constitution, not I.
You have revised the series of events. I did not suggest the chain of command trumps the Constitution. I posited a hypothetical question "
if the chain of command takes precedence over the Constitution" to you (
in post 75), because you (
in post 57) inferred in your question that Lakin's actions were irreconcilable with his oath because he did not submit to the chain of command when "
disobeying the orders of three superior officers". I disagreed with you and explained why. I asked you to defend your position. My question was sincere and reasonable, and you have opted not to provide any level of analysis in response. Furthermore, revisionist history (like the "
because there is" argument) wins no agreement or respect from the audience in debate. People catch on quickly when a party shirks a question by rewriting the history surrounding it.