>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.
I’m not sure that is the case. Does a soldier need orders to validate his upholding of the Constitution? {As shown the Constitution itself guarantees protection against invasion.}
Certainly he would be condemned if he defended his actions on “following orders” because the orders are invalid, but what if he defended based on the Constitution itself? {This is, in part, why I chose this scenario... there is a rational Constitutional defense for soldiers taking the action completely separate from the orders themselves.}
>Any order given by obama is unlawful and should not be obeyed.
Agreed.
>After world war II we put to death soldiers who were just obeying orders, because we considered those orders unlawful
How can obeying the highest lawful authority in the United States, the Constitution, be unlawful?
“How can obeying the highest lawful authority in the United States, the Constitution, be unlawful?”
When those in power do not accept or obey the Constitution!
I doubt that there is a single person in congress or the Supreme Court that does not know that obama is not eligible to be President. And they all are willing to stand by and allow Lakin to serve prison time for something he is not guilty of. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”