Posted on Mar 2, 2015
Supporting the Constitution vs. Obeying Orders. How do you walk the line?
4.32K
35
23
6
6
0
Often comments are made about Executive Branch decisions and the Constitutionality of these decisions and orders. Without getting into political commentary about any specific administration, share how you walk the line between following the orders and supporting and defending the Constitution.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
9
9
0
- Supporting the Constitution and obeying orders do not have to be mutually exclusive concepts.
- I have not come across a time in 23 years where these two ideas were in direct conflict.
- If a time ever comes where it appears that these two ideas were in direct conflict then I would use the following rules of engagement or escalation of force procedures (depending upon how one wants to look at it):
1. Seek clarification of the order.
2. If clarification resolves the conflict then great. If not then I would voice my concerns clearly, concisely and accurately and seek to have the order changed.
3. If the order gets changed then great. If not then I would speak to someone to ensure that my view of the Constitution and the order were both correct.
4. If the person is able to show where my understanding is incorrect then great and I execute the order. If not then I think my only remaining option is to refuse to obey the order and simultaneously submit my UQR (unqualified resignation) or request to retire.
- All the above assumes that time is available to go through the steps. If time is not available then the options are to execute the order or go straight to step 4.
- Keep in mind that most of the potential Constitutional issues that we are seeing recently are non military in nature and would never touch upon the Department of Defense. Keep in mind also that there are about 6-10 degrees of separation between the Commander in Chief (POTUS) and the average Soldier. Unless the order comes from a direct superior then I find it fairly arrogant of an individual Soldier or leader to presume they know something more or better than at least four senior leaders through whom the order has already passed. Keep in mind also that a legal order at a higher level can be implemented illegally at a lower level.
- I have not come across a time in 23 years where these two ideas were in direct conflict.
- If a time ever comes where it appears that these two ideas were in direct conflict then I would use the following rules of engagement or escalation of force procedures (depending upon how one wants to look at it):
1. Seek clarification of the order.
2. If clarification resolves the conflict then great. If not then I would voice my concerns clearly, concisely and accurately and seek to have the order changed.
3. If the order gets changed then great. If not then I would speak to someone to ensure that my view of the Constitution and the order were both correct.
4. If the person is able to show where my understanding is incorrect then great and I execute the order. If not then I think my only remaining option is to refuse to obey the order and simultaneously submit my UQR (unqualified resignation) or request to retire.
- All the above assumes that time is available to go through the steps. If time is not available then the options are to execute the order or go straight to step 4.
- Keep in mind that most of the potential Constitutional issues that we are seeing recently are non military in nature and would never touch upon the Department of Defense. Keep in mind also that there are about 6-10 degrees of separation between the Commander in Chief (POTUS) and the average Soldier. Unless the order comes from a direct superior then I find it fairly arrogant of an individual Soldier or leader to presume they know something more or better than at least four senior leaders through whom the order has already passed. Keep in mind also that a legal order at a higher level can be implemented illegally at a lower level.
(9)
(0)
4
4
0
I swore to uphold the Constitution and the orders of the Officers above me. If I am given an order that is counter to the Constitution it is therefore not a legal order.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
We are duty bound to follow the orders of those appointed over us. However we also have a moral obligation and duty to reject and not follow those orders if they are unlawful. Such things as murder, rape, theft, assault of innocents etc comes to mind.
Today's fighting men and women are not robots that follow blindly. We train small unit leaders to lead and make good decisions. We have Rules of Engagement.
The problem is ensuring the order is unlawful. Refusing an order could lead to very serious repercussions. Any Article 15 or Courts Martial would be a case of you're guilty trying to prove your innocence.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :)
Today's fighting men and women are not robots that follow blindly. We train small unit leaders to lead and make good decisions. We have Rules of Engagement.
The problem is ensuring the order is unlawful. Refusing an order could lead to very serious repercussions. Any Article 15 or Courts Martial would be a case of you're guilty trying to prove your innocence.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :)
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google