[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?

[so_real]

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

Incredible. You preface your question by making the assumption that the orders are "lawful" in fact. At this point I'm not certain you comprehend this, but if the orders were known to be lawful, no one (including Lt. Col. Lakin) would be having this debate. Everyone else involved in this discussion seems to understand that "obeying lawful orders" is not the conflict being addressed. Why don't you? When the lawful nature of the orders is core to the debate, you can't presume it to be true in-provectus. That is intellectual dishonesty. Assuming you do comprehend this, I have to assume you are not truly interested in the discussion. You are simply here to blather and waste other's time.