If the military lives and dies by the 'Chain of Command' why should it have a problem with

[TheCoxwain]

POTUS revoking DADT and signing an exec order allowing LGBT folks to serve in the forces ...


What gives it the authority to resist such common sense moves?

[old mark]

1. The Officer Corps in the US military is charged with "willing and cheerful

obedience to lawful orders".

If the C in C ORDERS them to do something, they are obliged to do it, period.
The US military does not run by consensus.

mark

[oldhippie]

3. Do you have a source for that quote?

I don't seem to remember anything like that in my oath as a commissioned officer in the Army. The Enlisted oath is a little different and references obedience to the CinC.

Officers:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Enlisted:
"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. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

[old mark]

4. It's not part of an oath, neither your officer's nor mine as a former EM.

The phrase appears in reference to the US military in various writings going back to at least the Civil War.

mark

[oldhippie]

8. I was mostly objecting to the "cheerful" part of your post ......

I had to obey a LOT of orders in my time with the military that I wasn't too cheerful about!

[Craftsman]

2. The prohibiton agains gay is a federal law if I am not mistaken

The key here is lawful order. If the president does this it is unlawful and under the law they are required to disobey.

[SeattleGirl]

5. Yep, it is. It's unfortunate, but that's why Congress needs to get off

it's ass and repeal DADT.

I know a lot of people on this board want Obama to sign an executive order reversing DADT, but to really "stick", the law must be repealed by Congress. I understand the reasoning whey people want that executive order, but what I'd really like to see is the law repealed, not just temporarily overridden by Obama. Obama can and should be pushed on this, but so should Congress. I don't want another California happening, where for a brief time, same sex couples could legally get married, and then, bam! It was reversed, and many, many people were let down, and angry.

And you make a very good point, Craftsman. It would be unlawful for Obama to do that, based on what you have said. IMHO, it wasn't okay when Bush broke or ignored the law; it would not be okay for Obama to do it, even if it would be for a much better reason than illegal wars and the other things Bush did.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. When did the President issue the order?

[baldguy]

7. Because the top brass are more politicians than soldiers.