The authorization to invade Afghanistan is EXACTLY THE SAME as the authorization to invade Iran. Both would be authorized by SJ Res 23 - which gives only “the President” the authority to use force.
IOW, if there was not an order from a Constitutional “President” to increase the use of force in Afghanistan, then the brigade commanders would be no more authorized to send additional combat forces to Afghanistan than to Iran.
But yet Lind says the existence or validity of the Presidential authorization is “IRRELEVANT” to the lawfulness of the orders.
That is revolutionary. That’s saying the brigade commanders can send combat troops to Afghanistan/Iran (take your pick; the legal authorization is the same) regardless of whether the person SJ Res 23 authorizes ever did, in fact, authorize the use of force.
“But yet Lind says the existence or validity of the Presidential authorization is “IRRELEVANT” to the lawfulness of the orders.”
__
That’s right. Now take a deep breath, you’re not thinking clearly.
Saying that Presidential eligibility is irrelevant to the lawfulness of orders doesn’t mean that all orders are lawful. It means that some orders are lawful and others aren’t, just as it’s always been.
Lakin’s order to report to his commanding officer’s office was legal, regardless of the eligibility of the President.
A brigade commander’s order to invade Iran would be illegal, regardless of the eligibility of the President.
It’s not hard to understand, you’re just getting carried away by your emotions.