[so_real]

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

Lakin's actions are irreconcilable with his oath because well and faithfully discharging his duties does not include refusing to obey the lawful orders of three of his superior officers. The Constitution doesn't enter into that.

My question was sincere and reasonable...

Your question makes no sense. How does obeying lawful orders conflict with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution?

People catch on quickly when a party shirks a question by rewriting the history surrounding it.

And how am I doing that?

[Red Steel]

You know you’re speaking to the village idiot.