b-boy bouiebaisse: i.e., the UCMJ tells members of the armed forces that they are empowered to disobey illegal orders given by commanding officers, up to and including the president.

yep, it’s the obvious next move

There is also every reason to think that this court will expand Trump v. U.S in his second term to extend immunity to those doing his bidding. I.e., “Our holding in Trump v. U.S. demands that government officials be able to enact the will of the executive without fear of criminal proceedings.”

Not that this court will give a crap but the Supreme Court early on expressly held otherwise—which of course will show again that the court’s new reading of presidential accountability is antithetical to that at the time of the founding. (We know that but still.) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_...

Little v. Barreme - Wikipediaen.m.wikipedia.org

In that case, the commander of a navy frigate intercepted a ship on the orders of the secretary of the navy, but the secretary’s order was inconsistent with the relevant law passed by Congress. Chief Justice Marshall said the commander was liable for carrying out an illegal act, even with the order

given the roberts' courts expansive (and frankly extra-constitutional) notions of "separation of powers," i do wonder if they would eventually turn their eyes toward any congressional regulation of presidential power, even that which is specified under congress' article i powers

for example, is the Uniform Code of Military Justice unconstitutional under this separation of powers doctrine?

I know they don’t care about consistency, logic, history or precedent, etc., but like, Congress has the explicit right to declare war! They’re saying the Executive has exclusive purview over things where the Constitution also specifically gives power to Congress. It’s maddening.

not only does Congress has the explicit right to declare war but also has the explicit right "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." it's on that basis that it passed the UCMJ. but the UCMJ also directly interferes with the president's power as C-in-C.

i.e., the UCMJ tells members of the armed forces that they are empowered to disobey illegal orders given by commanding officers, up to and including the president.

Good thing there's not video of Donald Trump calling for summary execution of a soldier who is in the middle of UCMJ process www.militarytimes.com/news/your-mi...

Donald Trump says Bowe Bergdahl should have been executedwww.militarytimes.com Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Thursday that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl should have been executed for leaving his post in Afghanistan.

Tbf a lot of people weren’t fans of that season of Serial

It's neither here nor there but IMO Serial s2 was far better than s1, which was just entertaining disinformation Serial s2 engaged seriously with a person who made a very poor choice with unusually outsized consequences, and how he & his peers digest what happened, which I find fascinating

Just a dumb joke! Some humor in dark times, etc…

I know, I got it, just sayin'

This is also very expressly something you are briefed on during BCT in the Army/National Guard.

I guess there's a difference between "if the president does it, it's not illegal" and "if the president does it, it's still illegal but he can't be prosecuted for it."

Can an order the President gives ever be illegal post USvTrump? I guess for everyone BUT the president it could be....🤔

The aim of what SCOTUS has done is to empower those in the armed forces to obey illegal orders even when they know they shouldn't...

…but would this ruling now mean that no order given by the president can by definition be illegal? thus removing this protection?

I think 'proscribed by law but not prosecutable' could be a category in jurisprudence if not practical law But this case it's that it's illegal to obey rather than to order At least, so far

'Illegal' orders is quite ill defined and service members can face consequences for not following those orders.

Basically a damned if you damned if you don't situation.

Post