Is it Constitutional for military directives to be handed down that clearly violate the military edict of aiding and abetting the enemy?
Political correctness may now be the new discriminating criteria for promotion up the ranks of the U.S. military.
Before anyone gets up in arms over this question, reflect on the scarcity of any outcry against recent U.S. military actions. A commissioned officer in the U.S. military has voluntarily sworn to unconditionally exhibit the following:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Unlike the enlisted oath of office, the aforementioned oath says nothing about obeying the orders of the President of the United States. This is because commissioned officers are charged with a higher level of responsibility. Military regulations, especially the Standard Organization and Regulations Manual (SORM) for each branch of service clearly outline the sobering responsibility of the following elements: “Leadership, Command, and Authority.”
So important is the requirement for good order and discipline that U.S. naval vessels when deployed give the ship’s captain autonomous authority. That authority is so far reaching that a member embarked in a deployed vessel may not opt to have his/her disciplinary proceeding referred to a courts martial. In such cases, the ship’s captain determines whether to subject the individual to Article 15 disciplinary measures, or refer them to a courts martial.
[…]
