[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.

[Hoodat]

And what keeps the CinC from leading a military coup are Congress, the Constitution, the Courts, and the military itself.

Actually, it's Amendment II.

[so_real]

I ask why two Oaths are necessary (one for officers and one for enlisted personnel) if not for the rationale I provided, and your answer is "because there is one for officers and one for enlisted". Seriously? Does a "because there is" argument ever win a debate, or even make a point?

I ask what prevents a military coup if the chain of command trumps the dictates of Constitution, and your answer is "Congress, the Constitution, the Courts, and the military itself". Really? Each of these is either part of the chain of command, or is rendered irrelevant by the chain of command if the chain of command trumps the Constitution. That's the sum total of the depth of your analysis?

Are you genuinely trying to discuss your views, or are you intentionally tossing out non-sequiturs for your own personal amusement?