Legal pursuant to what? “Under attack” in what sense?
The electors appointed by the states met and chose a president. There’s nothing in the constitution or statute law that makes it legal for the military to ignore the courts and the president chosen by the electorate college in order to take matters into their own hands.
That doesn’t mean that it might not make sense under certain circumstances, but it certainly wouldn’t be legal.
It is
Then your comment doesn't make sense. The military swore to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.
If they have proof that it is under attack then why wouldn't it be legal for them to defend it?
Legal pursuant to what? “Under attack” in what sense?
The electors appointed by the states met and chose a president. There’s nothing in the constitution or statute law that makes it legal for the military to ignore the courts and the president chosen by the electorate college in order to take matters into their own hands.
That doesn’t mean that it might not make sense under certain circumstances, but it certainly wouldn’t be legal.