Perhap as Commander in Chief, he didn’t believe a soldier in his service should dictate to him what he should do?
No, as usurper he didn’t want the CONSTITUTION to dictate to him what he can and can’t legally do.
Stuartcr wrote: “Perhaps as Commander in Chief, he didn’t believe a soldier in his service should dictate to him what he should do?”
You know, as a E4 I could have legitimately told my commander that he had to follow the Constitution (*how* I went about it might be considered insubordinate though that’s another issue).
Any order which is contrary to the Constitution is illegal precisely because the Constitution is the highest law in America; all soldiers are *REQUIRED* to disobey illegal orders. Period.
All military authority BEGINS with the Constitution, which places the President into the role of Commander-in-Chief; if that person is Constitutionally ineligible to be President then he cannot logically be the Commander-in-Chief.
OldNavyVet wrote: “What is especially galling, is that justice was perverted.”
Indeed. What military-men now have to put up with is a combination of Schrodinger’s-Cat regarding the legitimacy of their orders (they cannot be sure that their orders are, in fact, legitimate) AND Catch-22 (any forceful-request to validate their orders are grounds for UCMJ action against the requestor — DESPITE that the prosecution should have to PROVE that the orders are legitimate*.)
*The President’s Constitutional qualification is inherently an issue here — traditionally, as the commander of *ALL* of America’s armed forces EVERY order’s authority ultimately originates with him. This court’s declaration is tantamount to declaring that all officers have authority inherent in themselves and independent of the President.
> “Perhap as Commander in Chief, he didn’t believe a soldier in his service should dictate to him what he should do?”
.
Of course you meant as POSING Commander in Chief...
.