“I think you misunderstand me; I was referring to proving you were eligible for the promotion...”
I was not responsible for maintaining that paperwork. The records that went to the promotion board were available for review prior to the board. I suppose if someone had dropped out a school or degree or OPR, I would have contacted the school and had them send the paperwork.
Obama doesn’t have to justify his standing as CINC any more than I had to justify my rank to those beneath me. If someone wanted to disobey orders based on the belief I hadn’t been promoted, it would have been up to him to offer proof - not for me to submit proof for his review.
Lakin is refusing to obey until he is given proof that his commander is qualified, although he has presented no evidence to the contrary. That is unacceptable to the military.
“What if it was something as screwed up as a missing signature on a form somewhere?”
Fine. Produce the evidence. But you haven’t, and neither has Lakin. That makes Lakin the equivalent of a Sgt refusing to obey my orders until I prove to his satisfaction that I didn’t cheat in OTS.
“Hm; what about the private who refuses to let you into a secure area because you’re not on his list of authorized people?”
Then my order is illegal because my rank is irrelevant. The private is obeying orders and regulations, and I am the one who is not. What does that have to do with Lakin & Obama?
“Or do you expect me to be omniscient, knowing all about everything?”
No, but I expect Lakin’s legal council to research it. And I expect Lakin to research it before publicly refusing to obey an order to deploy and treat wounded people.
>Obama doesn’t have to justify his standing as CINC any more than I had to justify my rank to those beneath me. If someone wanted to disobey orders based on the belief I hadn’t been promoted, it would have been up to him to offer proof - not for me to submit proof for his review.
>
>>“What if it was something as screwed up as a missing signature on a form somewhere?”
>
>Fine. Produce the evidence. But you haven’t, and neither has Lakin. That makes Lakin the equivalent of a Sgt refusing to obey my orders until I prove to his satisfaction that I didn’t cheat in OTS.
>
>>“Hm; what about the private who refuses to let you into a secure area because you’re not on his list of authorized people?”
>
>Then my order is illegal because my rank is irrelevant. The private is obeying orders and regulations, and I am the one who is not. What does that have to do with Lakin & Obama?
Everything. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land superior to and of more authority than ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (elsewise how could it define the manner in which they are to operate?) If the Constitution is not being followed, then it is the equivalent of you trying to get into that private’s secured area. (Or do you wish to tell me that officers *don’t* “serve at the pleasure” of the Commander in Chief?)
If the person occupying the office of President is there without being qualified then needs bee there is no [authentic] Commander in Chief. In such a case there CAN’T be because there isn’t a qualified president.
You yourself have made appeal to authority, yet you acknowledge that someone in such a position can be in the wrong and have *no(* authority in some situation: “Then my order is illegal because my rank is irrelevant. The private is obeying orders and regulations, and I am the one who is not.”
If the Constitution is the Supreme law, then it is also the highest [governmental*] Authority. If it is the highest authority in the land then anyone acting contrawise to it is in the wrong and has no legitimate authority, correct? Then, if others are aiding that person, or passing along orders in pursuance thereof, those orders are of no weight, correct? So then, if someone DOD/Secretary-of-Defense/TAG is producing orders those orders are of no effect because they are passed “at the pleasure” of someone who is violating the Constitution.
(Yes, God is THE Authority; but let’s not get into Theology, ok?)
So, yes. Something like an ineligible person assuming the office of President (and therefore Commander in Chief) *IS* not only a “Constitutional Crisis” but a complete disintegration of the legitimate authority of the entire Chain of Command *UNLESS* (and this is important) the orders issued are ensuring that the Constitution is followed (ALL other orders are of null effect). So, this means IN THEORY that the CO if, say, the 5th ID could take the initiative to order his troops to AZ to repel the invasion there (i.e. pursuant to Art 4, Sec 4 of the Constitution), but NOT something like going on parade.
That is why it should be considered ESSENTIAL by all military members that [in particular] the Constitutional qualification for President is met.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The VERY simple version of this argument:
1 - Someone shows up claiming to be the new OIC for some unit
2 - The Staff of that unit accept him at his word
3 - It is found out, some time later, that the new “CO” isn’t even in the military
4 - Are the orders issued by that ‘CO’ binding?
5 - Are the orders issued by legitimate officers, *in pursuance* to the orders mentioned in #4, valid?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////