Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2Please show me where the President has the authority to transfer absolute authority and control of the US Military to some other nation and/or entity ??He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
This is what makes you an ass, and a propagandist.
The President never "transfers absolute authority and control of the US Military" to anyone, at any time.
Even when he attaches units or individuals to a multi-national task force, he retains command authority. He can order them to come home at any time he so desires.
For troops of the Nations participating in any multi-national joint mission, maintaining autonomy in the field would be fatal, armies need a clear chain of command.
That wasn't my arguement. I was referring to your post saying NEW had a duty to uphold the Constitution more than follow orders from the CiC. The Article I cited shows the President has Constitutional authority to enter into treaties (agreements). The US has written agreements with the UN to assist in peace-keeping duties. Michael New was not defending THAT part of the Constitution.
This is all moot. Didn't you see the above posts about US commanders NOT relinquishing authority over their troops to UN commanders? It's all been explained above why New has been found guilty. I don't care for the Marxist UN people and I especially don't like the idea of US troops playing cop, but New disobeyed a "lawful" order.