I have no idea what Fundamentally Fair think on this matter. I haven't seen any of FF posts. If you want to invoke FF as an authority on this matter you should do them the courtesy of pinging FF and asking their take on the matter now that it has wrapped up.
As for you opinions on this, there's not much I can do for you on that. The world has this nasty tendency to not do things the way we think it ought to.
If you don’t want to accept my interpretation, then take these very “experts” on the Iran scenario. In THAT scenario, they say that not only would the orders be unlawful, but brigade commanders would be court-martialed themselves for issueing combat orders without authorization from the President.
Even though they claim in the Lakin case that valid authorization from the President is “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of combat orders.
And look at Lind’s ruling, herself. Why did she mention the electoral vote or Obama’s oath of office? According to her own ruling, Obama’s Constitutional status is irrelevant. So why mention him at all then?
These people know they’re chasing their tails. They know their logic is not internally consistent. The Iran scenario reveals it all.