What the hell kind of logic is this article using:
the move would put troops “in the impossible position of having to choose between following their Commander-in-Chief and obeying the laws enacted by Congress.”
When you chose between two different things it is exclusive, This OR That. Troops could be obeying their CiC's order that are (and) consistent with laws enacted by congress.
Finally, what the hell is the CiC doing issuing illegal orders in the first place.
I can't wait to here SCOTUS ask questions about this. This is going to make for one hell of a circus.
The below paragraph is also incorrect.
"While the Military Code of Justice holds that troops must decline unlawful orders, the group argued that siding with Trump could unfairly force service members into the uncomfortable position of rebuking the leader of the free world or facing jail time."
So it might actually incentivize them to obey the Military Code of Justice, rather then their illegal orders? Is that their argument?
“Under this theory, the president could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders."
Idiots!! The President is not immune from prosecution. A president can be impeached for committing illegal acts, and tried in the Senate. THAT'S WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS IDIOTS!
When I enlisted, and with each re-enlistment I took this oath, and it says nothing about obeying the laws passed by Congress. BUT it does specifically mention the Constitution:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
This one sentence is the plunger into all of this BS:
"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
"obey the orders of the President of the United States"....the aholes are trying hand tie the President...that is all!!!
I took that OATH for 30 years (ret. mil) and this is NOTHING but lawfare!!!!! The SCs are there to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN AND NOT TRY TO INTERPRET...
What the hell kind of logic is this article using:
the move would put troops “in the impossible position of having to choose between following their Commander-in-Chief and obeying the laws enacted by Congress.”
When you chose between two different things it is exclusive, This OR That. Troops could be obeying their CiC's order that are (and) consistent with laws enacted by congress.
Finally, what the hell is the CiC doing issuing illegal orders in the first place.
I can't wait to here SCOTUS ask questions about this. This is going to make for one hell of a circus.
The below paragraph is also incorrect.
"While the Military Code of Justice holds that troops must decline unlawful orders, the group argued that siding with Trump could unfairly force service members into the uncomfortable position of rebuking the leader of the free world or facing jail time."
So it might actually incentivize them to obey the Military Code of Justice, rather then their illegal orders? Is that their argument?
“Under this theory, the president could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders."
Idiots!! The President is not immune from prosecution. A president can be impeached for committing illegal acts, and tried in the Senate. THAT'S WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS IDIOTS!
When I enlisted, and with each re-enlistment I took this oath, and it says nothing about obeying the laws passed by Congress. BUT it does specifically mention the Constitution:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
This one sentence is the plunger into all of this BS: "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
"obey the orders of the President of the United States"....the aholes are trying hand tie the President...that is all!!!
I took that OATH for 30 years (ret. mil) and this is NOTHING but lawfare!!!!! The SCs are there to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN AND NOT TRY TO INTERPRET...
I'm just quoting what the article says about code.