I'll wait to hear why everybody under the military legal code will somehow risk being charged for insubordination in military court, especially when military chain of command has already seen two officers get fired by Obummer for defying his orders regarding Benghazi.
"Because I scream so and arbitrary pessimism is 'realistic'" is not a valid argument.
The highest ranks of COC get to determine the constitutionality of those orders. That means the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense.
No. Even naval captains “act at their peril” when following unlawful orders of the President himself. Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804).
You're referencing a SCOTUS case now. Is the SCOTUS going to oversee a court-martial? No.
I just proved you have no idea of what you're talking about, because as I've been saying, you are conflating the UCMJ and the civilian courts.
Yes, as long as the case has gone through the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (or CAAF). With respect to appeals from the CAAF, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant certiorari in four specific circumstances: 1) cases in which a death sentence has been affirmed by the relevant branch’s Court of Criminal Appeals; 2) cases that a Judge Advocate General has certified to the CAAF; 3) cases in which the CAAF granted a petition for review, and 4) cases that do not fall in the other categories but in which the CAAF has granted relief. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1259.
Spez: You’re way out of your depth, man.
Spez: And stop talking about the UCMJ as if I’m unfamiliar with it. I literally taught you what it was in this thread.
This is after the initial court martial. Does not matter at that point. I can tell because you had to take some time to try to search engine a rebuttal.
You keep dodging the topic of the actual logistics of defying the order for martial law, which would not work out regardless of whether the order is declared unlawful after the order is carried out.