You like to think that, but in actual fact the good major is questioning his orders, not the Constitution. He says he won't follow orders, unless a court rules that Obama is authorized to give them. It's a very cute point... but it is not the military's job to make it.
There was a reason our founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen.
The Founders were also well aware of the dangers of a military whose power and control lay outside the control of the civilian leadership. Indeed, civilian control is the founding principle of the US military.
One implication of this lawsuit is the assumption that the military (not just this one soldier) has a right to question its orders in this manner. In a very real sense it places the military somewhat outside the control of its civilian leadership.
>>I am willing to be enlightened but this is about a specific point, whether the Constitution is followed, not about who and what orders to follow.
>
>You like to think that, but in actual fact the good major is questioning his orders, not the Constitution.
Ever since the Nurmburg trials ruled that “I was just following orders” was not an acceptable defense they gave the right/responsibility to question the legality of orders (and the right to refuse illegal orders).
>He says he won’t follow orders, unless a court rules that Obama is authorized to give them.
And this is wrong how? I mean if I get a call from Mr Smith who claims to be a Colonel and gives me verbal orders to assemble someplace at some time that I have to go? Even if he WAS a Col. I wouldn’t be strictly bound by his orders because he isn’t appointed over me. (He’s not in my chain of command; and if those orders are in conflict with say guard-duty, and I went merrily off, then I would be derelict in my duties.) The proper thing to do would be to inform my own Chain of Command and then let them duke it out with Col Smith.
>It’s a very cute point... but it is not the military’s job to make it.
And, apparently it’s not a civilian’s either... I mean look at how the USSC refused standing in the civilian cases. Further, take a look at the example above, it IS the military’s job because if the president is illegitimate then the position of the Commander in Chief is, technically, unfilled... and THAT is the top of the chain of command.
>>There was a reason our founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen.
>
>The Founders were also well aware of the dangers of a military whose power and control lay outside the control of
>the civilian leadership. Indeed, civilian control is the founding principle of the US military.
Then why do officers and enlisted swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? Why are they only bound to follow legal orders? And, further, why can they ignore the Constitution’s requirements for the President (and therefore the Commander In Chief)?
>One implication of this lawsuit is the assumption that the military (not just this one soldier) has a right to question its orders in this manner.
They have ALWAYS had that right. There has always been a ‘show me’ attitude in the military, that’s why orders are written down. Again, refer to my above scenario.
>In a very real sense it places the military somewhat outside the control of its civilian leadership.
And this situation has occurred precisely because the Federal Government is outside the control of its civilian leadership. Nobody make challenge our ruling class: like the ruling concerning slander lawsuits against Murtha, like the USSC refusing to slap-down the illegal breach of contract regarding GM/Chrysler, like the lack of standing for any civilian to challenge Obama’s eligibility.
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”