· Platinum Bullet Member
Only came here to remind everybody this is why we should not respond to Mauserboy.
Thank you for clearing that up Clyde, I wasn't sure the exact language. But isn't obeying lawful orders from the Commander in Chief, in a sense taking an oath to the orders of that office? Or am I misinterpreting it alltogethor?Absolutely NOT. The oath i to uphold and defend the Constitution and bear true allegiance to the same. And to obey the LAWFUL (emphasis supplied) orders of the Commander in Chief and such other lawful superiors as may be issued. I repeat the oath is NOT to the President as Commander-in-Chief, only to obey lawful orders originating from him. Note the aprt about "lawful". The duty of obedience is limited to lawful orders.
Isn't LAWFUL open to interpretation? Could Gen. Petraeus refuse to fight in Iraq if he felt the orders were unlawful? I know he wouldn't, I'm just asking if it is open to debate?Confederatecaptain got the wording closer to right than my quick answer - but the obligation to obey awful orders of lawfully appointed superiors is NOT by any means the same as taking an oath to an office 9or office holder). One of the things taht got the Germans (I speak of their militray) twisted up in WWII was the requirement that they take a PERSONAL oath to the Fuhrer. We don't do that, ours is to the Constitution. The obligation you accept (explicitly) as aprt of it to obey LAWFUL (I emphasize that for a reason) orders from your lawfully appointed superiors is an obligation that comes with the oath to accept, support and defend the Constitution. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is there and important.
By the way, the UCMJ actually imposes a duty, subject to criminal sanctions, if you do NOT disobey UNLAWFUL orders...