Replies

I’m not talking about who has to obey orders. I’m talking about the LAWFULNESS of orders.

And Lind said that whether the President is QUALIFIED makes NO DIFFERENCE to the lawfulness of the orders. IOW, it could be Osama Bin Laden himself telling the military to carry out combat operations, and the military would all just have to bow and obey.

That’s what she said. Right?

And you’re agreeing with her?

I said that wrong. She didn’t just say that the whole military would have to bow and obey if Osama Bin Laden took an oath to be POTUS and commanded combat operations. She said all the orders given to carry that out would be LAWFUL. There is nothing in the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization to Use Force, or military protocols or chain of command that prohibits orders carried out by somebody unable to Constitutionally “act as President”.

"That’s what she said. Right?"
__

Butter, that's the third time you've done that! Are you being silly on purpose? What's the point of totally distorting what I said and then trying to get me to agree that you're quoting me accurately? That's just a childish game.

You must have breezed over my previous post too quickly. I explicitly said that Col. Roberts's order to Lakin to report to his office was a lawful order. And you are obviously totally ignorant of what Col. Lind actually wrote, or you wouldn't be getting all of this wrong. She was very specific about why the orders that Lakin received were lawful. You obviously disagree with her, but she is the Chief Judge of the First Judicial Circuit. I haven't seen you cite any legal sources that would indicate that you are right and she is wrong.

I know you have these spectacular fantasies about Joseph Stalin or Osama bin Laden sending us off to war, but please, let's try to keep it rational. This court-martial was about an order for an Army man to report to his commanding officer's office. He disobeyed the order and was punished.

And you do understand why his project was doomed to failure, don't you? It's really very obvious. We don't give our military the power to judge the President's qualifications -- under any circumstances.

According to the Constitution, the military is under civilian control, and I hope you will agree that it must always remain so.

If the President has an eligibility problem, it must be addressed by the Congress. And it's not too late -- the House is in Republican hands, and hearings could be called at any time.

But to suggest that a military court should judge the President's eligibility would be, I'm sure you would agree, anathema to the Founding Fathers.