[GladesGuru]

***That said, any member of the millitary refusing to obey an order shold be ready for the system to do what the system will do.

Exactly. Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It’s what the system says is constitutional that counts.***

The right and duty of the individual to refuse an unconstitutional order is a uniquely American concept. Note that the officers of the Tird Reich did not have that as part of their oaths.

Ours does, for a reason.

As to your argument about the constitution is what the system says it is, have you considered the rather large number of cases where an individual filed a case which changed “the system”

Such cases are the real “Yes, we can”.

[Huck]

So name me a case where a soldier refused an order on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and won the case in court.

[K-Stater]

The right and duty of the individual to refuse an unconstitutional order is a uniquely American concept. Note that the officers of the Tird Reich did not have that as part of their oaths.

It is the duty of an individual to refuse to obey an unlawful order. It is not the duty of the servicemember to decide if an order is Constitutional or not. Therefore orders are assumed lawful unless they require one to perform a clearly illegal act, such as the commission of a crime.