[OneWingedShark]

[thread ping]
I’ve put together a scenario which illustrates the basic problem; I’m particularly interested in the answers to the two final questions.

---

Let’s say that I were to type up orders assigning myself to the command of some unit, then dig out my old BDUs, get a shave & a haircut, go to the PX and get a nice little rank-patch with a line of stars. Then, after making sure everything was in order present myself and the orders to the unit mentioned in the orders.

Now, let’s say that I ordered the unit to go to the southern AZ border and enforce the border-security with lethal force. These orders are themselves authorized by the Constitution of the United States, to wit:
Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

So then, the only variable concerning the validity of the given orders is the person who is issuing them; in this scenario: me. As in mathematics I have isolated the variable in question, which is that of origin: do those orders which originate from an unqualified source, even if in complete agreement with the Constitution, still carry LAWFUL authority?

That is to say, would those orders be legitimate?
If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?

[Squantos]

Keeper....book marked. Outstanding.

Thanks !

[bgill]

That is to say, would those orders be legitimate?

You could dress up in a clown suit for all the legal authority you'd have issuing orders. You'd be an imposter, a fake, and so would any orders you handed down.

If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?

Because this isn't the America you grew up in. This is the twisted and sick America. This is the America where white guilt and PC elected a criminal. This is the America that nazi Soros bought and paid for.

[omegadawn]

Under the scenario presented , if a soldier killed someone the military would hold that person guilty of murder as the orders were unlawful even if the soldier did not know so.

Any order given by obama is unlawful and should not be obeyed.

After world war II we put to death soldiers who were just obeying orders, because we considered those orders unlawful

[The Comedian]

...

That is to say, would those orders be legitimate? If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?

Outstanding-gedanken-experiment ping!

However, I'd say a closer analogy would be to question the validity of the orders if there were *unConstitutional*, which is the kind Obama is issuing. In fact, where is the Left with its "illegal war" chant, because Congress never declared war on Iraq?

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[butterdezillion]

Wasn’t there a guy who actually did that - did present himself as having a position he didn’t really have? I don’t know how he did it or how they found it out and had him removed. Do you remember that? It was within the last year.

The Article 92 elements are clear that orders given beyond the authority of the person who gave them are not lawful. So neither you (in that scenario) nor Obama (in our current demise) could give lawful orders if you had no legitimate position giving you the authority to give those orders.

The anti-birthers will probably say it is only equivalent to ask whether the orders to move (which would be given by your subordinate) would be lawful if you gave orders to deploy, in that scenario. I don’t see that it makes any difference whether we’re talking about your order to deploy or the subordinate’s order to move. Either way what invalidates the lawfulness of the order is not the issue of criminality but the issue of authority. An order is not lawful - regardless of how non-criminal or Constitutional it is - if it is given by someone acting beyond their authority.

If you acted beyond your authority to order deployment, then there was no valid order for your subordinates to implement and their orders to implement deployment would be beyond their authority to give.

Does that make sense?

In Lakin’s case, the authority to “use appropriate force” in response to 9-11 and terrorism was specifically given by Congress to “the President” only. Anybody else implementing the use of force is acting beyond their authority if they don’t have the orders of a valid, Constitution-compliant “President”.

Lind’s argument is that the military can be authorized by Congress to give orders independent of “the President” so Lakin’s orders don’t depend on “the President”. Whether any orders through the chain of command are truly independent of “the President” can be debated, but in Lakin’s case it is irrelevant because the specific orders Lakin received were in support of combat operations that Congress specifically allowed only “the President” to use. Without “the President” deciding to use force in Afghanistan, any brigade commander implementing the use of force is acting beyond their authority.

That’s my understanding. Is there anything I’m overlooking on this?

[thecodont]

Very good scenario. Thanks for posting it.

[B4Ranch]

If the unit accepted you as legitimate then I see no reason why the men wouldn’t obey your orders. The top Generals in the Pentagon have accepted Zero as being legitimate, so to them his orders are legitimate.

The current choice for legislative candidates is lawyers who cannot earn a comfortable living working in the Courts and we see the corruption that has resulted from them. Perhaps there is something about needing more combat veterans in our government positions.

The criminals in this situation are the senior members of both parties in the Congress and Senate. They have accepted as their goal, establishing a NWO and having the United Nations as the center of authority.

I cannot comprehend how someone with free personal liberty would voluntarily become a slave. This bureaucratic collectivist one-world government has been the dream of many since the inception of the League of Nations and world peace. When the League of Nations collapsed the United Nations was proposed in 1945 as the replacement. The Charter of the United Nations in no way, shape or form grants individuals the liberty they have under the US Constitution.

“If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we’ve all worked toward for so long.” — President George Bush (January 1991)

“[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it’s perceptions.” — Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference,
Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel , April 19th 1994

“How I Learned to Love the New World Order” -article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in the Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg

“All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to building a NEW WORLD ORDER.”—Robert Kennedy, former U.S. Attorney-General, 1967.

“Fundamental Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.” —Nebraska State Senator Peter Hoagland, speaking on radio in 1983.

“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of freedom to Americans...” “And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the Housing Projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make the people feel safer in their communities”—President Bill Clinton 3-22-94, MTV’s “Enough is Enough”

Does TSA come to your mind when you read this?
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..”—
Bill Clinton USA Today—3-11-93, page 2a

“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” — Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

I’m sure some will call me a nutcase or worse for posting this but all of it is verifiable.

[Quix]

INDEED.

WELL PUT.

Thankfully, God has a warm spot in hell for the gloablists . . .

I just hate to see what they are going to be allowed to get away with between now and their shipping out to there.

[Non-Sequitur]

If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?

Irrelevant to the charges Lakin is facing.

[Red Steel]

That is to say, would those orders be legitimate? If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?

This court is full of BS and they know it. Politically, if not in court, LTC Lakin is going to be a lead anvil that will drag Obama down.

[El Sordo]

A better example might be if you joined the military, received a commission, went out on duty and then a buck private refused to clean out the latrine because he read on the Internet that you cheated on your OCS tests.

Is the private a hero?

[Second Amendment First]

I’ll respond here to the question you posed on another thread.

What you conjecture is indeed the heart of the issue. Succinct and to the point, it illustrates the quandary we face.