The cases that need to be adjudicated for this issue - have been on the books since before Jan 20th.
If Obama and Biden were lawfully certified as the electoral winners (which is questionable, given that Cheney failed to ask for objections as required by law), then Obama became the POTUS at noon on Jan 20th. But if he “failed to qualify” by then he cannot assume the powers and duties of the presidency; only the VP elect can do that.
The AUMF that you reference gives the authority to use force specifically to “the President” and doesn’t mention the countries by name. We used force in Iraq because a valid Constitutional POTUS ordered it. We used force in Afghanistan because a valid Constitutional POTUS ordered it. Since then, Obama has ordered MORE FORCE in Afghanistan through a specific order, which resulted in Lakin being ordered to deploy.
If Biden is the one the Constitution requires to “act as President” since Jan 20, 2009, and preside over the decision regarding what force, if any, should be used in Afghanistan (in accordance with the AUMF), then additional deployments since Jan 20, 2009 that were not authorized by Joe Biden are unlawful. They were not properly authorized by Joe Biden, who alone can “act as President”, with the President alone being able to decide what force to use.
If the orders had been to Iran Lakin would have been right to disobey because the orders were contrary to the Constitution and because his superior didn’t have the authority to make the order. That’s what you said, and that sure seems accurate to me, because no valid President has ordered combat operations in Iran. A valid POTUS is AUTHORIZED to order combat operations in whatever country the POTUS believes necessary, including Iran. So a valid POTUS COULD order deployments to Iran.
The question is whether a valid POTUS ever DID. That is the central issue in deciding whether a deployment order to Iran is lawful or not.
Lakin is asking a question of fact: DID a valid POTUS order additional troops to Afghanistan? If a valid POTUS didn’t, then the deployment orders to Afghanistan are just as unconstitutional and the superior officer was just as un-authorized to give the orders as would be the case if orders were to Iran. What would make the orders to Iran unlawful is the absence of a valid POTUS order, which would be exactly the same thing as a troop surge to Afghanistan without the order of Joe Biden, who alone is able to “act as President”.
And if Lakin is allowed the latitude to disobey a deployment order to Iran because he knows as a matter of fact that a valid POTUS has not made an order for use of force there, then he also has the latitude to disobey a deployment order to Afghanistan based on the same fact.
The whole thing hinges on a factual matter: Did a valid, Constitutionally-acting POTUS give an order for additional troops in Afghanistan?
We can argue about the answer to that factual question. That is actually what Lakin wanted, regardless of what the ultimate finding of fact would be. But Lind is saying that the fact of the matter - whether a valid, Constitution-compliant POTUS had ever given the order for additional troops - is IRRELEVANT.
The same authorization that applied to Afghanistan would apply to Iran. If the fact of a Constitutionally-valid POTUS authorizing the use of force is irrelevant for Afghanistan, it is also irrelevant for Iran.
IOW, the logical conclusion to what Lind is claiming is that any brigade commander anywhere can deploy combat troops to Iran or anywhere else, and Presidential orders would be IRRELEVANT.
Is that really where we want to go with this?
BTW, if a brigade commander issued combat deployment orders to Iran right now, what Article would they be charged under in a court-martial?
“IOW, the logical conclusion to what Lind is claiming is that any brigade commander anywhere can deploy combat troops to Iran or anywhere else, and Presidential orders would be IRRELEVANT.”
__
Not at all, and we went through this yesterday.
What Judge Lind said is that the legality of an order given by a superior to a subordinate does not depend upon the eligibility of the President.
That doesn’t mean that all orders are lawful.
It means that orders are judged on the basis of the law, as they always have been. Some are lawful and some are not.
COL Roberts’s order to LTC Lakin to report to his office was a lawful order, regardless of the President’s eligibility.
An order by a brigade commander to invade Iran would be an unlawful order, regardless of the President’s eligibility.
Isn’t that clear to you? You are attacking straw men of your own invention. The actual facts are not nearly so confusing as you are portraying them to be.