Ehren Watada ?

?

I am talking about the American constitution, not the UN regulations. The US military and the US president don't answer to the UN.

You sidestepped the question. The constitution specifically sets out the powers and the limitations of powers of the US government. It specifically says that congress has the power to declare war. What good is a constitution if we ignore it?

What about following orders as exampled by the video, orders which goes against the constitution and American values? What about civilian LEO, search and seizures of property without due process? What if civilians forced to care and house people that may or may not be enemies of the state?

No doubt there would be repercussions for not following.

I watched the video again trying to find what orders go against the Constitution and found none. To be honest the entire thing is misleading and shows an extreme bias. No matter how Mr. Whittle wants to spin it, the President has little to do with any of the things mentioned. All regulation changes regarding uniforms, jewelry, body art, etc. come from the Secretary, Chief of Staff, or the senior enlisted advisor for each branch. And these regulations and policies were not created to hinder anyone from doing their jobs, but to maintain the professional appearance of our troops.

As for the other "orders", anything not covered by official regulation would be at a commanders’ discretion. Military life, military rules.

That was the initial commission. Promotions was a single piece of paper which nullifies the previous rank. If you have that other promotion paperwork post it up. If you will blindly follow that's you brother not me.

I thought it treading very close at least.  New military is a bit far from the old military were regulation changes regarding uniforms, jewelry, body art, etc. maintain the professional appearance of our troops.

That was the initial commission. Promotions was a single piece of paper which nullifies the previous rank. If you have that other promotion paperwork post it up. If you will blindly follow that's you brother not me.

I think MD was pretty clear in his explanation, so I'm stumped as to what you want to know here? Yes, Article One Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war.  How does that change that the President is Commander in Chief and under 50 USC §1541, may "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities"? The Constitution is not being ignored.

"According to the War Powers Resolution, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of sending military forces into action. Armed forces can stay engaged for no more than 60 days, with an additional 30 day withdrawal period unless there is a formal Congressional authorization of military force or a declaration of war."
http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress.html

Another page explained that the founding fathers wanted authority to declare war rests with congress so that a single person is not in charge however the president is given control to lead the military so there is unity of command.

So is it a lawful order for the president to conduct war beyond the 60 days?

Lets go out on a limb with an extreme example to illustrate the problem with just relying on the section you quoted above.

The president decides he doesn't like maple syrup so he orders our soldiers to bomb Canada's maple syrup factories. Are you going to tell me that order is legal and refusal to do so would not be justified because the president may introduce armed forces into hostilities?

I don't think an abuse of power needs to be followed even if it is technically a legal order.

Please!  The Oath of Enlistment and/or Office is NOT supposed to encapsulate the "if - then - else" decision process contained in the UCMJ.  It's an oath that you make to uphold the responsibilities of your position.

The UCMJ and Code of Conduct are there to guide you in your day-to-day decisions.  The difference between a legal order, and illegal order, and the appropriate actions to take are complicated and will never be covered in any oath.

If you want to try and say "I never swore an oath to do <fill in the blank>", remember the oath is very general.  The "fine print" of what you promised is contained in the other documents.  Part of the commissioning programs is to teach candidates what is in those documents BEFORE they raise their right hand.

The oath is different from the commissioning document.

The oath is different from the commissioning document.

"According to the War Powers Resolution, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of sending military forces into action. Armed forces can stay engaged for no more than 60 days, with an additional 30 day withdrawal period unless there is a formal Congressional authorization of military force or a declaration of war."
http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress.html

Another page explained that the founding fathers wanted authority to declare war rests with congress so that a single person is not in charge however the president is given control to lead the military so there is unity of command.

So is it a lawful order for the president to conduct war beyond the 60 days?

Lets go out on a limb with an extreme example to illustrate the problem with just relying on the section you quoted above.

The president decides he doesn't like maple syrup so he orders our soldiers to bomb Canada's maple syrup factories. Are you going to tell me that order is legal and refusal to do so would not be justified because the president may introduce armed forces into hostilities?

I don't think an abuse of power needs to be followed even if it is technically a legal order.

I'm guessing I received my commission longer ago than most all the other forum participants who share the privilege and responsibility of having one.  In my commissioning training, the officers instructing us emphasized that it was not only OK to disobey an unlawful order, but that we had an affirmative duty to do so.  They also made it very clear that none of us were constitutional lawyers, and just because we didn't like an order didn't make it unlawful...  That duty was not to be undertaken lightly, and as MD has said, only after considering the potential consequences if we were mistaken.

The quibbling over whether or not it matters that the oath of office doesn't specify obeying the lawful orders of superiors when the commission does is silly.  The oath and the commission go hand in hand; you can't look at one without the other.  The oath is your promise to accomplish your duties as specified in your commission.