Consolidating my response here to several of your posts. I have read what you gave me. And I am tremendously thankful to you for posting the references. You are one of the only people who disagrees with me on this who is citing the legal sources. What you have provided is far more than Dwight Sullivan’s entire blog was willing to provide me. Regardless of how we come out in the final analysis, whether to agree or to disagree, I have to respect the factual responses you have given and admire the epistemology that prompts you to give them. You’re a good guy, Buckeye, and what we disagree doesn’t change that a bit.
I also appreciated your input and help on coming up with an apology on this thread. I think you saw there was a misunderstanding in progress and wanted it cleared up because you do care about fairness and about people. Again, nothing we disagree about keeps me from seeing that basic quality of your character. Thank you for being who you are.
I think the conflict between our views regards what it means that the SecDef must have the approval of the President. What you cited was statute. When the words “shall” or “must” are used in statutes it is an imperative. So the SecDef is not legally allowed to do the things described in that section without first having the approval of the President. The authority for the SecDef to do those things is legally dependent on the approval of a valid President.
So the statute itself makes the authority for the chain of command to deploy troops totally dependent on the approval of the President. How, then, can Judge Lind say that the approval of a valid President is “irrelevant” to whether one particular link in the chain of command (brigade commanders) had the authority to issue combat force deployment orders?
She talks about Congress having authority over the military - but the authority Congress gave the SecDef is expressly dependent on a valid President’s approval, and the authority for the chain of command within the military structure is dependent on the approval of the SecDef. So Congress’ oversight of the military does not CONTRADICT or SUPERSEDE the President as the source for authority down the chain of command; it actually codifies it - at least in regard to combat authorization, which is what is at issue with Lakin’s deployment orders.
Thanks for the kind words. You’re welcome. BTW, the monkey question was intended to be funny not insulting.
Your sincerity is clear, butter. It’s obvious that you want to know the truth. I just think you take your conclusions and/or questions to an extreme sometimes.
You’re spot on about why we disagree. Remember basic Government 101? Th Legislative branch makes the law. The Executive branch enforces the law. The Judicial branch interprets the law. So Congress makes the orders legal and the CIC enforces them through the chain of command. So for the sake of discussion, assume Obama is unable to enforce the chain of command (i.e. the order) becase he’s ineligible. Does that make the order illegal? No. Judge Lind’s role as a member of the Judicial branch was to interpret the law. Specifically she had to decide if Lakin’s orders were legal. She rightly concluded they were.
Yes, I cited statutory law, the authority for which was granted to Congress by the Constitution.
“I think the conflict between our views regards what it means that the SecDef must have the approval of the President. What you cited was statute. When the words “shall” or “must” are used in statutes it is an imperative. So the SecDef is not legally allowed to do the things described in that section without first having the approval of the President. The authority for the SecDef to do those things is legally dependent on the approval of a valid President.
So the statute itself makes the authority for the chain of command to deploy troops totally dependent on the approval of the President. How, then, can Judge Lind say that the approval of a valid President is “irrelevant” to whether one particular link in the chain of command (brigade commanders) had the authority to issue combat force deployment orders?
She talks about Congress having authority over the military - but the authority Congress gave the SecDef is expressly dependent on a valid President’s approval, and the authority for the chain of command within the military structure is dependent on the approval of the SecDef. So Congress’ oversight of the military does not CONTRADICT or SUPERSEDE the President as the source for authority down the chain of command; it actually codifies it - at least in regard to combat authorization, which is what is at issue with Lakin’s deployment orders.”
1. Have you served in the US militry?
2. Do you know what a TO&E is?
3. Have you ever administered a chain of command, and/or delegation of authority system in an organization?
4. Have you studied or practiced military law? Civilian law?
5. In actual practice, do you believe the Sec. Def. calls the President, before signing every memo, document, order, etc.—to determine that the President, in micro-detail, approves that action?
Too bad this once fine soldier, got bad advice, acted upon his own mistakes, and blew his military career.
FYI I predict if a poll were conducted of active duty military personell, it would come down very hard on Lakin.
IMO playing games like this, in the military during war is NOT the appropriate venue to determine a constitutional and political question.