The Constitution: Following Commands?

[G-Wohl]

Hey everyone,

Was just wondering if somebody here could clarify this question. I already believe I know the Constitutional answer to this question, but rather I'd like it in writing for somebody who doesn't agree with me.

The question is this: Is there any passage in the Constitution that says that those in the military must obey orders from superiors and/or the commander in chief?

Sure, Article II states the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, but is there any writing that actually suggests they MUST follow his orders? Would any Constitutional lawyer ever say that the term "Commander in Chief" implies that his orders MUST be followed under penalty of Constitutional law?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
--Andrew

[Pericles]

I put the answer to your question in two parts.

1. Constitutional requirement - the US Constitution and the treaties entered into by the US are the supreme law of the USA. The President, as CinC, is required to give oders in accordance with the Constitution. Failure to do, is an unlawful order.

2. Uniform Code of Military Justice
(A) Enlisted troops swear to the following - I 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

(B) Officers have an oath of Office - I do solemnly swear 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.

Officers have much wider latitude (and responsibility) in determining that orders be legal in order to be carried out. Enlisted troops only have the responsibility to disobey clearly unlawful orders (kill unarmed civilians, execute prisoners, conduct torture, and the like). Orders as a result of policy decisions, will not have much of a chance of being refused without penalty (the war is unconstitutional, no declaration of war, no legal authority to give the order, and the like). The Officer Corps is supposed to be the filter in such cases. The general rule that officers will follow is that defensive actions (self defense) are always allowed - respond to attack, while offensive actions (attack other countries) require an order and evidence of Congressional approval. Notice I did not say declaration of war - such is a state of diplomatic relations between sovereign states.

[G-Wohl]

Pericles,

Thanks for the great answer!

Do you mean to say, then, that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that troops must obey their commanders? You definitely seem to indicate that obeying is in the troops' oath, but there's nothing explicitly written in the Constitution, to my understanding?

[Pericles]

Pericles,

Thanks for the great answer!

Do you mean to say, then, that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that troops must obey their commanders? You definitely seem to indicate that obeying is in the troops' oath, but there's nothing explicitly written in the Constitution, to my understanding?

The Constitution does not, but the "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" power of Congress may require following the orders of the President and superior officers in rank, again, subject to those orders being lawful orders, which are in the current Articles 90 and 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.