Replies

"One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States."

This is what I base my statement on. I posted this and the officer oath in my post 118.

"This is what I base my statement on. I posted this and the officer oath in my post 118."

I see. To be more specific, what language in US v. Michael G New do think lends itself to distinction between the officer and enlisted service oaths?

Can you point to any specific examples in either the lower court's decision, or the appellate affirmation of that decision that would change because of the officer or enlistment oath?

Do you believe that the trial judge in deciding that the question of legal authority was nonjusticiable based on the political question doctrine would come to a different conclusion had the defendant been a commissioned officer?

Or, do you believe that because of the defendant's enlisted status as opposed to a commission, the appellate court would have found some infirmity in the legal reasoning of the trial judge when he decided that the defendant's orders were legal? And, if you do believe that, what infirmity do you think the appellate court would have hung their hat on?

I'm fairly familiar with the Manuel for Courts-Martial, and I don't believe that it makes any distinction with respect to commissioned or non-commissioned status of the defendant when directing the trial judge to decide an orders lawfulness. But, if you're aware of such an instruction, please point it out as I'd love to educate myself.