[so_real]

How can you reconcile such conduct with the oath he took as an officer?

That is easy, Non-Sequitur ... Despite their similarities, the Oath of Office germanely omits the requirement to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" as it exists in the Office of Enlistment. This is key to the defense against corruption within the military body itself. The Lakin case is precedent setting and if this antigen against rot from within is removed ... anything becomes legal including military coup. In this way, I reconcile Lt. Col. Lakin's actions and personally find that they "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" to which he was appointed. He has done what is right, instead of what is easy. That makes him a patriot and a hero. Now, your turn : why do we have two Oaths, and what keeps the CiC from leading a military coup if the chain of command takes precedence over the Constitution?

[Non-Sequitur]

In this way, I reconcile Lt. Col. Lakin's actions and personally find that they "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" to which he was appointed.

Would you also consider officers like Ehren Watada or Yolanda Huet-Vaughan to have done the same for refusing to obey orders on constitutional grounds?

Now, your turn : why do we have two Oaths, and what keeps the CiC from leading a military coup if the chain of command takes precedence over the Constitution?

We have two oaths because there is one for officers and one for enlisted. And what keeps the CinC from leading a military coup are Congress, the Constitution, the Courts, and the military itself.