The question was not whether he had to obey it. The question was whether the order was LAWFUL.
And she said that the eligibility of the President who approved the combat operations was irrelevant to the lawfulness of the orders. IOW, even if it was an ineligible POTUS (like, say, Joseph Stalin) who ordered combat operations (on, say, Iran), all the smaller orders to carry that out would be lawful.
So what she effectively said was that as long as Joseph Stalin took an oath to become POTUS, he can order combat operations and all the orders to carry out that operation are lawful. There is nothing in our Constitution, laws, or military codes that would put ANY OBSTACLE in the way of Joseph Stalin using the chain of command to do whatever combat operations he desires - even if everybody in the military knew he was ineligible and a foreign enemy combatant. If the military had evidence that a foreign enemy combatant was in the White House their only response could ever be to roll over and say, “So what? That’s totally irrelevant to what we do.”
Right? That’s what she said?
“Right? That’s what she said?”
__
No, now you’re getting further away again.
Think about it, Butter. The Army has been in business for a long time, and they live or die on whether people can be counted on to obey their orders. Have you ever been in the military? Everyone who has knows that you have to obey your orders. The rules are very strict and they are stacked against you: It’s in the Army’s interests to make sure that orders are not disobeyed, and they’ve constructed the rules accordingly.
If your commanding officer tells you to report to his office, you better report to his office. Lakin’s commanding officer ordered him to report to his office. He was absolutely authorized to give that order, so it was a lawful order. Lakin had the obligation to obey it. He did not.
That’s all the court-martial was about. Lakin was stupid enough to believe that he could make it into a trial of the President, but that was a dumb pipe dream, and Col. Lind’s ruling makes it very clear why that was the case. I’m sorry you’re unhappy with it, but I haven’t yet heard anyone knowledgeable about military law say that she called this one wrong.