Your view is important to us and to the country. However, for the moment it appears you may represent the view of a minority of the officer corps.
But, you have almost turned the corner with your reasoning when you say -
“Major Cook and Captain Rhodes, in my opinion, acted properly - using the courts - to question the authority of POTUS Obama. When ruled against, they saluted smartly and drove on. They did not violate their oaths.”
What would be your view if the court had ruled in their favor?
Most on this thread do not advocate military force to remove O from office, and none should be necessary. But many argue if the USSC determines O is not qualified for the office then – no matter how the politicians in the Congress may act - the officer corps that swore fealty only to the Constitution are bound to ignore orders he may issue.
“Your view is important to us and to the country. However, for the moment it appears you may represent the view of a minority of the officer corps.”
I am NOT active duty. However, the discussions I have privately conducted with regulars have all surprised me at how little thought they give to this. It is a non-issue to them...they are more concerned about deployment, their troops, family, etc. than who is the POTUS and is he qualified to be so or not. So, I am the “minority”, but not as you imply. I am the minority that has actually given this matter thought. Actually, amoung the active duty officers I associate with....the issue is not discussed or given much thought....they don’t have the time or inclination. If they do, they are very careful to keep their opinions to themselves. The military must remain neutral. We are not some free militia...we are a standing army and must maintain discipline in the ranks and in ourselves.
If Major Cook and Captain Rhoades had been successful, I would be very glad. It would have forced POTUS Obama to come clean on his records and forced the Congress to deal with it. However, if congress failed to act....the same situation remains....I cannot for my oath of office and the authority of my commission does not include removing a POTUS from office.
I cannot nor will I participate in any action contrary to the U.S. Constitution. No where in that document does it gives officers of the armed forces the responsiblity/authority to remove a POTUS declared ineligible by the SCOTUS. Even IF a sitting POTUS obtained office by fraud....then it is still the proper proceedure under the constitution for the Congress to impeach that person in the House and try and convict him/her in the Senate. At that point, his/her authority as CINC ends. Now should the sitting POTUS attempt to use the military to stop Congress from properly impeaching and trying him/her then the situation changes. I would refuse any such issued order because they would be unlawful.
Whatever, as this speculation is not fruitful and as I previously wrote....it could be construed as attempts to sow seeds of mutiny and sedition in the Armed Forces. It is best to leave the military out of your discussions and speculation.
Also, I think many here don’t grasp how limited a “commission” is in scope. It can be given and the stroke of a pen and removed just as easily.