SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: paret who wrote (7189)1/11/2006 11:38:02 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) of 15987
 
U.S. District Court Judge Friedman, who ruled against New, conceded Clinton may have broken the law, but contended it's the duty of Congress to challenge the president, not a soldier.

Hmmm... this is interesting... I wonder how solid Judge Friedman's comments were about this being against the law..

Seems that New has a potentially credible argument that he was refusing to obey an unlawful order.

The question is what oath the soldier has taken... to the constitution, or to Congress and the President??

And if a CinC can require a soldier to obey an unconstitutional order, then what other constitutional provisions can be ordered away??

Basically, from where does a soldier draw his standard as to what constitutes a lawful and unlawful order?

Military Regulations, or the Constitution which he swore his oath to?

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News