Nick Szabo  🔑

Recall that the only long-term, constitutionally enumerated branch of the military is the Navy. Art. 1 Sec. 8 Clause 12: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". It's been a lot longer than 2 years.

They make a new appropriation every year.

Shit. That's a fair point. Regardless, I still stand by my statement that it's kind of pointless to bring up the Constitution now.

The armed forces swore an oath to it, and the New York Times and some former intelligence officers are calling on them to violate that oath. Unlike those overly sophisticated gunless effetes, military people actually read the Constitution itself not leftist deconstructions of it.

If the president's orders are unconstitutional, those orders should not be followed. Example: Katrina gun grab. Could this happen again? https://youtu.be/yxgybgEKHHI 

That's not what they were saying, and they would highly likely be on the other side of a gun grab issue.

I get that, but the pledge to the Constitution comes before ALL orders, no matter where they come from.

Their pledge to the Constitution means quite straightforwardly that they must follow the President's orders -- that is what Commander-in-Chief means. They certainly cannot choose to follow some unelected bureaucrats instead, that would be a violation of their oath.

The idiocy of revoking clearance being equated to free speech is impressive. Clearance limits free speech. It’s information that shouldn’t be divulged to the public.

40 years ago, we had a 45 minute class on this in boot camp. Predictable vagueness ensued. During the Q&A at the end, specific scenarios were presented. The instructor, a sergeant, was visibly uncomfortable trying to reconcile the Court Martial rules with contextual ethics.

Just Wikipedia'd the guy. I think I like him.

Thank you Edouard.

How frightening is the thought that @realDonaldTrump is Commander in Chief?