I'd be interested in seeing what part of the UCMJ supports that. I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.
I don't need to be granted that right in the UCMJ. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that is one of them.
Despite what the liberals pretend, interpreting the Constitution is not a difficult task. An order to disarm the American people in general (as opposed to a particular individual or group that pose a threat to the country) is a clear and direct violation of the Second Amendment and must be refused (with a penalty that must be endured if the Commander-in-Chief has no respect for the Constitution he pretended to swear to uphold). Doing the right thing is not guaranteed to be painless, just to be right. An order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people violates the 4th Amendment and must be refused unless there is an immediate danger that requires the warrantless search (or that immediate danger is at least plausible when obeying the order) . . . And so on through an order to infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.I don't need a lawyer to interpret these simple concepts for me. There are issues that are on the line and could be interpreted either way, but an obviously unconstitutional order is an unlawful order, and God gave me both the right and the responsibility to disobey such an order.
In these interesting times and with Obama in power, that right and that duty are particularly relevant. As with Nazi Germany (and I am not convinced that Obama will not turn out to be worse for the world than Hitler), I don't need additional legal authority to do the right thing in accordance with my oath and with the Constitution. The Nuremberg Trials made that quite clear.
If your opinion is a majority among people in this country, the experiment in self-government is over. DONE. You actually believe this? Or are you just being provocative?
You do realize the Constitution is built on self-evident rights? Like the inherent right to own and carry arms? Would you really obey an order to disarm civilians en masse? If so, I do not believe you are an honorable soldier, not to mention keeping your oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
How can you even keep the oath unless you know what the hell it is you are taking an oath to defend? Insanity.
I'd be interested in seeing what part of the UCMJ supports that. I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI ¶2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Unconstitutional orders (or statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. or other governmental rules or actions) are illegitimate by definition. Any rule would would require a soldier to obey an unconstitutional order is void.
To be sure, there are many cases where reasonable people could disagree whether an order is constitutional; in such cases, a soldier should follow it. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives court rulings any authority whatsoever other than in the specific case at issue, any government action which could not be constitutionally justified without reference to court precedent is constitutionally unjustifiable and illegitimate. It's perfectly proper to use past court decisions to decide whether something is constitutional in those cases which would be truly ambiguous otherwise; it is not legitimate, however, to cite them as primary authority to reach a decision which could not be reached in their absence.
And what gives them the authority to interpret direct orders? What is it about certain sets of instructions which require different standards of proof. Consider that one set of instructions actually declares itself to be supreme to all others and is the subject of a binding oath of obedience. Those who act on behalf of the constituted government are denied the authority to misinterpret the Constitution by the Ninth Amendment, anyway.