You said — “But, what about following the orders of someone who is not a legal superior, such as the Commander-in-Chief?”
Right there is the problem with all of what you’re saying.
This is speculation, not based upon a court of law deciding and/or affirming that this is the case. If all soldiers get to say this, based upon speculation with nothing being proven (you can say “yet”, if you wish...) in a court of law, it would be chaos in the military if that kind of “defense” was allowed for those military people to do so...
—
Now, having said that, there will be all sorts of people who will say, “It’s been proven!” (at least to their satisfaction, it has been). The problem is, it hasn’t been proven in the way that our society and system demands it be proven. It’s still an accusation and speculative, until it gets through the entire process of the judicial system. Until then, it’s not proven.
And so, until then, lawful orders can be issued by the Commander in Chief and there is not a defense for disobeying them (or in the chain of command) based upon the “allegation” that “he is not legally Commander in Chief”.
This is the kind of thinking that promotes the label (from other conservatives) — the Obama Derangement Syndrome — to think that one can base a “defense” on something that is not proven (in that court of law, and is upheld) and is still speculation.
Isn’t it instructional that this poster cannot seem to grasp the fundamental perspective of the military people seeking eligibility be proven? Obamanoids and blood-born liberals cannot grasp such simple concepts and must always twist the imagery to fit their demented mental condition! This poster will never grasp the simplicity because to do so would change her perspective and open her mind to ‘other’ reality.
Obama hasn't proven, in the way that our society, our system, and the Constitution demands, that he is eligible to be President, despite repeated requests to do so.
Remember, the President works for us. Obama applied for the job -- we didn't go looking for him. As any employee would do, he asked us to approve him based on his credentials.
Well, where are his credentials?
Here's an analogy:
You see your doctor complaining of headaches. Your doctor schedules you for an MRI, and the radiologist subsequently finds a tumor in your brain. You are then referrred to a brain surgeon.
While waiting in his office at the hospital, you notice that he does not have his Medical Degree posted on the wall. Curious, you ask the other doctors and nurses from where did he het his MD. Nobody knows. You ask the hospital administrator from where he got his degree. He says, "Harvard Medical Scool." You then ask him if he has ever seen his certificate. He answers, "No." You then ask him if he has ever seen any of his transcripts from Harvard. He answers, "No."
Finally, when you get to see the guy who is going to cut open your head and play Lobotomy with your brain, you ask him if you could see his Medical Degree. He turns on his computer, goes to the Daily Kos website, and says, "Here it is," pointing to a strange-looking image copy.
You let out a sigh of relief and say, "OK, Doc, I'm satisfied. Let's do it."
I've heard some really specious arguments before but, yours is as fallacious as they come.
Memo to Star Traveler:
No credentials = No job