What kind of crackpot system wouldn’t answer the question of who the legitimate authority actually is?
The one we are currently operating under, and have the ability to change in November of this year.
It was never a political question.
Every person you mentioned is a political appointee. Of course it is political. Was it right, or fair, no. Was it constitutional, yes. Elections have consequences. The military's role in choosing the CIC ends at the ballot box constitutionally.
saying that it is a gross injustice to force them to take an oath and then provide them no way to keep it.
The oath is voluntary no one is forced to take it.
All it will take is a spark to set this whole forest on fire. Black riots, economic collapse (perhaps by another run on the bank like in Sept 2008), or an EMP attack by Iran using a North Korean nuke launched from Venezuela are all scenarios that could happen any day Obama/Soros wants it - and when any of those happens, every state capitol and DC could be overrun with Hezbollah sleeper operatives in hours - while our troops are sitting ducks being shot at over in Afghanistan.
All possible, but then the rules have changed. Everything you outlined is possible with any President just more likely with 0. Elections have consequences. Like willing or unwitting political appointees as you discussed. It doesn't change the fact that we are currently operating under the Constitution. Does it suck, oh yeah. But these ARE political issues, not military ones. Those come later, as the Founders intended.
The problem is that politics have trumped the oaths. By even taking the oath, Obama was violating it - knowing that he intended to undo the Constitution he swore to uphold and had actually made plans to destroy the US economy.
It’s not supposed to be that way though. And when military officers take an oath to protect and defend the US Constituion from enemies foreign and domestic, it’s got to be understood that domestic enemies very likely would include those within the military itself. So how does the military provide for accountability for the powerful people in the military?
Our whole system is built on the foundation that fallen human nature is drawn to power, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the answer to deal with corruption is to make sure that those who know there is corruption have the means to get rid of that corruption. What that means is that the low people on the totem pole have the power to hold accountable the POWERFUL people - the ones who are most likely to be corrupted.
So how does the military implement that? Who holds the SecDef accountable, and how? It can’t ever come down to the powerful people; there always has to be a way for the little people to hold the powerful accountable, because it is assumed that the powerful people will all be corrupt unless there is a real way for the little people to zap them. So who can zap the SecDef? Who can zap the people that Lakin went to, who totally ignored their oaths and the serious questions raised?
How do the little people zap SCOTUS if they are corrupt - for instance, when 2 justices refuse to recuse themselves from a conference for a case where their very jobs are the issue?
See, xone, I’m beginning to think that elections don’t really change anything, because the people in powerful positions have no reason to fear we the people. Soros has the media threatened. That we know for a fact. Unless 50+% of the public suddenly gets all their information from alternative media on the internet, that fact alone means that a majority of voters are as compliant as if they’d been given a date-rape drug. There is no reason for anybody in DC to fear us. Add to that the fact that most electronic voting systems are owned by a big Obama donor, and the old Soviet adage comes into play: It’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes...
The military doesn’t choose the CIC, but they have a responsibility to know who the Constitutional CIC is, because the UCMJ requires orders to be given by the lawfully-authorized chain of command, in order to be lawful. The Constitution requires that if the President-elect has not qualified by Jan 20th, the VP-elect is to “act as President” - which includes the job as CIC, and the CIC is the only one authorized to order the use of force (for instance) in the War on Terror. So this isn’t a political issue; it is a LEGAL issue - and one of paramount importance because every order the SecDef sends down the chain of command is unlawful if not properly authorized according to the Constitution.
What do you mean when you say the military issues come later, as the Constitution intended?