Allow me to present a different view, this one from one of the comments at the CAAFLog:
"[A]s Marine infantry officer, allow me to lobby for something else – maximum punishment. For our country to maintain an effective, disciplined and loyal fighting force, we must ALWAYS respect the civilian control that is so elemental to our country’s Armed Forces. Lakin, irrespective of how he colored it, was in a very real, tangible way working to undermine that civilian control. That CANNOT stand.
"We have a civilian political process that is in place to select our civilian leadership. The military, to especially include military officer (field-grade officers, in this case) must always defer to that political process. Obama is the president, period. Whether or not we believe he holds that office defectively must have no impact on our obligation to meet the demands of our mission, and to ultimately complete that mission. Lakin’s hubris directly and negatively impacted his unit’s ability to obtain mission accomplishment. Such hubris cannot be tolerated in our officer corps, and it must be punished to the fullest extent possible. This isn’t just about Lakin, it’s about foundational principles of military leadership."
Whether Obama is or isn’t the President, the 20th Amendment says that if the President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the VP elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
The issue is whether - for whatever reason - Obama can “act as President”, and the only entity which has authority to determine that is the federal judiciary.
The military is overstepping their bounds by trying to make that decision for the civilian judiciary. Exactly what the commenter at CAAFLog SAYS should not be allowed.
IOW, this commenter is shooting his/her own argument in the foot.