Lind’s ruling that the legal authorization for the orders are irrelevant to the lawfulness of the order contradicts 4 different legally-binding sources. When can that ruling be appealed?
If the legal authorization for the orders - which in the case of combat is the President - is irrelevant, then why did Lind even mention anything about Obama? Why did she take judicial notice that Barak Obama (and yes, I spelled that how SHE spelled it) was certified as the electoral winner and took the oath of office? Under her own ruling, shouldn’t that be just as irrelevant as whether he ever “qualified” as required by the 20th Amendment?
Where in her ruling does Obama being “the President” (whether Constitutionally or not) have anything to do with the price of beans in China? She cited no legal reference that brings him into the picture at all - specifically used i under Article 92 “lawfulness” and avoided ii.