No; the prosecution has to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, the government has to prove the order was lawful. If the defendant claims that the order is unlawful because Obama is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, then the government must produce the evidence that he is constitutionally qualified. The real fear should be that the judge just might take judicial notice that Obama is the legitimate President.
All in all, charges being filed is simply te next step in the process and what the defendant and his lawyers wanted to happen. FRankly, I'm a bit surprised the government acted so quickly unless those in the chain of command either want to discourage others from taking similar action or they want Obama exposed as soon as reasonably possible.
In this case, the government has to prove the order was lawful. If the defendant claims that the order is unlawful because Obama is not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, then the government must produce the evidence that he is constitutionally qualified. The real fear should be that the judge just might take judicial notice that Obama is the legitimate President.”
I'm sorry, but that just isn't true at all.
The Manual of Courts Martial clearly states: “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.” A defendant claiming an order is unlawful doesn't in and of itself require the prosecution to prove anything, particularly when the order in question requires no specific action on the part of the defendant that can reasonably be construed as illegal. The orders in question are simply going to be accepted by the judge as legal, yielding an inevitable conclusion.