Nick Szabo  🔑

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.

Following the Constitution means following all of it. If orders do not align with the text of the Constitution they should not be followed, even from the president. That's why the oath is to the Constitution and not to the president...

Which specific orders has the President given that do not align with the text of the Constitution? Put up or shut up.