If any President asks you to direct your military efforts against the People, would you obey the order?

Assuming that you're posing a question centered upon an internal conflict within the United States, such a situation, regardless of where you stood, would be a disaster for us all.

Our system first and foremost uses the ballot box and the checks and balances between the branches of government to address differences of opinion as to what is or isn't constitutional. I think it has become a dangerous mythology that any American who happens to disagree with a political ruling has a right to take up arms against the government. That's what a lot of these so called militias preach.i say so called because while they have taken the term used in the constitution, these "militias" have no connection to the ones described. But the constitution addresses insurection and there have been anti insurrection laws on the books since 1792.

So for all the great talk about " needing a revolution now and then" the fact is our system is designed to avoid that very thing. But especially today, any group of dime store constitutional scholars seem to think it's part of being an American to threaten armed revolt whenever the government doesn't happen to agree with them.

I have thought long and hard about this for years. My answer is no, I would not. Nor would I if that same order came from the Governor of the State of Oregon.

Seeing as I am retired and one of the "PEOPLE" I sincerely hope that LEGAL orders would be obeyed, and ILLEGAL orders would not. To many variables to give a yes or no answer.

Working under a few assumptions here.

1) For the order to actually MAKE IT from CINC to "BN Level" it would have had to go through so many levels both Operational, and "Legal" chances are that it is a "Legal Order."

2) We have the actual operational ability to perform the order as directed. i.e. we exist in the same place, same time, and have the ability to do what is being directed.

3) Congress doesn't shut it down, as in call for immediate impeachment.

4) My immediate Officers don't "Belay that" pending clarification of Intent, using the "Last Order first" Philosophy. As an example, LTC (Join to see) Gives an order which runs counter to the philosophy of our Oath, any individual in the Chain of Command between him and Sgt Kennedy can in theory say "belay that" prior to execution as we clarify, because sometimes things are "lost in translation" especially through multiple communications.

5) Every officer above me doesn't resign their commission and/or just refuse to follow the order because they are not sworn to follow the orders of the President.

6) The People is not what we are sworn to. It is the Constitution. The People and the Constitution can run counter to each other (though this would be rare), and this could create a "all enemies, foreign and domestic" issue.

There is no correct answer to this question. We have to work under the assumption that the President would likely never do so, however, we have indeed seen that happen, and if it does happen he would only do so for the good of the Nation (Constitution). If that is the case, we must follow the Constitutional Powers he has. If he is within those Powers, and those delegated by Congress, while not violating our personal morals or ethics, we follow the order. If the order violates those or our Oath, we escalate and "attempt" to reconcile or live with the consequences if we cannot.

Without seeing the exact order or situation, I cannot say.

The President can't override Posse Comitatus and that order would be an illegal order. I don't think the Joint Chiefs would even pass that order down the chain. And I don't think the President is going to be personally ordering a company, Battalion, or Brigade to do XYZ directly. So, i guess the answer is, "no."

Taking care of criminal activity within the US borders is a law enforcement job.

Current twisting of the Constitution would have me thinking long and hard about such an order.

Twenty people, 11 of them children, died during an attack by the Colorado National Guard on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado. The event led to wider conflict quelled only by Federal troops sent in by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson--1914
That's just One example of massacres enacted by U.S Troops on American soil. I can give many more, but why bore you? You can look it up.
Some questions come to mind for me.
Are they armed combatants? (most of the massacres by U.S Troops were on the Unarmed).
Is it truly defending the U.S From insurgency or for political/monetary gain of private interests? (as in the above instance).
If I pull this trigger, how will I see myself in 5 years? How will History see me in 100 years? (seems a silly question at first but it has merit. If you honestly believe that your actions will stand the Time test of Ethics, then you're probably in the Right. If you think, even for a moment, that History will probably vilify you as a murderer of innocents....you shouldn't pull the trigger).
My Only litmus test for actually firing on anyone is.....Are they shooting at Me? Is My life and the life of my buddies in eminent danger? That goes for downrange as much as on American soil, for soldiers or police officers. I can stand before a large mob all day in riot gear with my M4, but if all they're doing is chanting or yelling, why would I shoot them? I'm reminded of the protests in the 60's and video footage of police and NG roughly abusing protesters, many of whom were doing little more than sitting there holding flowers or signs. Their actions Do Not stand up to the Time Test of Ethics. If you allow Fear to overcome your common sense, if you refuse to Think about your actions before and During the conflict, you run the risk of murdering innocents. That's something I couldn't live with even if the Gov't sanctioned my actions and I wasn't prosecuted.

That would really depend on the situation, and there is no one answer that fits all for that. Stopping looting and general violent lawlessness that has grown beyond the ability of law enforcement to handle (ie aftermath of a massive natural disaster)? Sure. To prop up a politician who has declared himself "President For Life"? Not so much.

I think it would depend on the order being legal or not.