If Aunt Sadie orders him to deploy, it is not legal.
Are we saying if his superior received orders from Aunt Sadie, the order is valid?
Are we then saying that as long as there is an authority at least one step removed from the wrongful order, that the troops are protected from prosecution?
Are then saying that the only people to challenge the President's authority is the Secretary of Defense, through whom all of Obama’s orders are conveyed?
Where is the right to challenge a usurper?
I don't much like a rule that permits illegal orders to be made righteous through a sufficient number of steps in the chain of command.
If we have no redress through legal process, what are we, as a people, left with to remedy the situation?
Are we a banana republic?
“Are we a banana republic? “
Apparently you want to make us one, where the military decides who is President...and a Lt Col in the military, at that!
If Aunt Sadie ran for President in 50 states, was allowed on the ballot in all 50, won the vote, was certified by Congress - then yes, Aunt Sadie could order him to deploy!
It isn’t the role of the military to decide who can run or be elected. There are officials in all 50 states who are responsible, and the voters, and the Electoral College, and Congress - and they have ALL come down on the side of Obama being eligible.
How can our military function if no one can give a lawful order?
Are we a Banana Republic? Yes, if the military now have the power to decide to refuse the Commander in Chief's orders because they doubt his eligibility for office solely on their own authority.
George Washington would be turning in his grave if he knew this country had overturned the Constitution's bedrock principle that the civilian government controls the military, and not vice versa.
So at what point is the source of the order subject to challenge?
A soldier may challenge the order at any time, but s/he had better beware of the consequences:
"As this court observed and reemphasized in United States v Rockwood, 48 M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1998):
An individual soldier is not free to ignore the lawful orders or duties assigned by his immediate superiors.
'For there would be an end of all discipline if the seamen and marines on board a ship of war [or soldiers deployed in the field], on a distant service, were permitted to act upon their own opinion of their rights [or their opinion of the Presidents and United Nations intent], and to throw off the authority of the commander whenever they supposed it to be unlawfully exercised.'Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 506 (quoting Dinsman v. Wilkes, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 390, 403, 13 L.Ed. 1036 (Dec. Term, 1851)) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted)."
However, the defense can argue the illegitimacy of the entire chain of command. In that case they will need to be able to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution will have access to the defense witness list AND any evidentiary documentation in that regard. The best outcome Lakin can hope for is the defense prevail on what essentially would amount to jury nullification, i.e., illegitimacy of the very charges themselves.
Nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, the burdon of proof for such defense is entirely Lakin's. In Lakin's upcoming trial the President is not on trial, nor is a defendant (and as such is under no obligation to defend himself or otherwise provide proof of eligibility to hold the office of POTUS).
Should Lakin prevail with the defense of illegitimate chain of command (predicated on the unconstitutionality of the Commander in Chief), that's a completely different ball of worms. What recourse Lakin would have againt the chain of command in part (or whole) is unknown to me, but there'd be lawsuits winding their way through the court system for years (if not decades). Should that turn out to be the case, I believe that Obama would be gone within a month of Lakin's acquital. And that, without any doubt, would be after a firestorm of public outrage.
However, all that is pure speculation and any sort of outcome in Lakin's favor is utterly dependent upon the unassailability and unimpeachable evidence Lakin already possesses to support his contention of Obama being unfit to serve as Commander in Chief.
So at what point is the source of the order subject to challenge?
If Aunt Sadie orders him to deploy, it is not legal.
Are we saying if his superior received orders from Aunt Sadie, the order is valid?
Are we then saying that as long as there is an authority at least one step removed from the wrongful order, that the troops are protected from prosecution?
Are then saying that the only people to challenge the President’s authority is the Secretary of Defense, through whom all of Obama’s orders are conveyed?
Where is the right to challenge a usurper?
I don’t much like a rule that permits illegal orders to be made righteous through a sufficient number of steps in the chain of command.
If we have no redress through legal process, what are we, as a people, left with to remedy the situation?
Are we a banana republic?