Supporting the Constitution vs. Obeying Orders. How do you walk the line?

2015-03-02T09:04:49-05:00

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.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 2 at 2015 9:09 AM

2015-03-02T09:09:54-05:00

Excellent question! I look forward to seeing how this discussion evolves (and how long it goes before turning into "political commentary").

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 9:12 AM

2015-03-02T09:12:23-05:00

While I definitely have an opinion, I sometimes find it hard to reconcile supporting and defending the Constitution and following the orders of those over me. Ideally, there is not conflict here. I promote healthy dialogue within an "academic" discussion at the right time/place. Outside of these occasional dialogues, I do what is needed to achieve the mission of the unit.

Response by MSgt Roger Lalik made Mar 2 at 2015 9:24 AM

2015-03-02T09:24:51-05:00

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... :)

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Mar 2 at 2015 9:26 AM

2015-03-02T09:26:13-05:00

- 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.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 2 at 2015 9:46 AM

2015-03-02T09:46:44-05:00

I view the enlisted oath as being in order of importance. 1. Support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic (including the extremely unlikely situation that the president or an officer becomes an enemy to the Constitution) 2. The orders of the president 3. Orders of officers appointed over me

All of these in accordance with regulations and the UCMJ.

Response by SN Kyle Carpenter made Mar 2 at 2015 9:50 AM

2015-03-02T09:50:40-05:00

I would disagree with the notion that supporting and defending the constitution has anything to do with anyones interpretation of the constitution.
If I feel that the 2nd amemdment says citizens can own and carry guns in puplic places and no one is allowed to take that away. Then I am ordered to take people's guns away. That is a lawful order, because mine is only an interpretation of the consitution. We don't get to choose lawful order based on how we interpret the law. Defending the constitution frm enemies foreign and domestic doesn't mean against the every swaying views of the government.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Mar 2 at 2015 1:24 PM

2015-03-02T13:24:31-05:00

I support all lawful orders of those above me without consideration of the constitutionality of the order. I leave that for the courts to decide!

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 2 at 2015 3:05 PM

2015-03-02T15:05:45-05:00

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.

Response by SFC Pete Meyer made Mar 2 at 2015 9:48 PM

2015-03-02T21:48:27-05:00

Any order that go's against the constitution is no order at all. In fact the officer who gives it should be brought up on chargers... 18USC sec2383 comes to mind...

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Mar 3 at 2015 10:37 AM

2015-03-03T10:37:16-05:00

by the way, what is the article for following illegal orders