[edge919]

No. She ruled that the President of the United States and those underneath him have authority, and that authority continues until someone shows the proper authority (Congress) evidence that Obama is not the President. Therefor, otherwise lawful orders remain lawful orders, pending Obama’s Constitutional removal by Congress

That's not exactly what she said, although what she did say is still poorly reasoned. She said the CinC shares authority over the military with Congress and the SecDef, and that these bodies exercise independent authority over the military. The problem is that two of the charges were not inseparable from the CinC, nor does the co-authority of Congress or SecDef substitute for the authrotiy of the CinC. He doesn't have to be removed in order for his putative authority to be invalidated.

And a court martial board lacks Constitutional authority to investigate or act. THAT RESPONSIBILITY lies with Congress!

This is factually incorrect. The judicial system has authority over cases of law, equity and controversies. Second, the Constitution prescribes no power to Congress over the vetting of presidential eligiblity or the establishment of citizenship. The court had no expectation of removing the president from office, only in establishing whether this officer was legally justified in disobeying orders emanating from illegitimate chain of command compromised at the very top by a constitutionally ineligible CinC.

[butterdezillion]

You explain things so well. I think I’m going to shut up and just let you do the talking. If I can control myself. lol

[bvw]

As ButterZ says — Thank you!