Would you obey an illegal or unconstitutional order?

President Trump on Monday threatened to deploy the U.S. military to cities or states that don’t take “necessary” actions to halt violent protests, saying the armed forces will “quickly solve the problem for them.”

Then Congress orders the armed forces to be deployed to halt violent protests (1/6).

This is an interesting question. It is very complex and way above the pay grade of a 20 year old soldier in my mind. I will try to give you the answer a 76 year old VN vet who is lawyer about what I would have done as a 20 year old private in a combat zone. If I sincerely believed it was an illegal order -shoot a child - I would refuse on behalf of myself and my men. On your facts, I would probably ask my CO what his view was and go with what he said while trying to figure out what was really happening. That is the best I can do for you. And it is my honest opinion.

All of us took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It didn't say anything about enforcing the will of Congress, the courts, or even the president of the United States. Remember the oath you took and stop posting this bullshit.

Please allow me to respond with a question of my own. At what point do you consider yourself to be an expert on the Constitution and on Constitutional legality ? When did the military become one of the three branches of the Federal Government? We are oath-bound to obey all lawful orders of those appointed over us. The tricky part is knowing if such orders are lawful or not. It is NOT our job to interpret whether or not the implementation of he 1807 Insurrection Act is legal. Same with Martial Law. That is the job of the Judiciary branch. Until such time as the legality has been refuted or confirmed by the Supreme Court, we are obligated to do our damn jobs in a professional military manner.

The Trump camp has been mulling over ordering martial law which I doubt will happen, but if he does, I expect the generals to stand down and not follow his orders.

No

Nope

No. And I’ll leave it at that

Aside from the given example, Above Members have a duty to put the law first. During Hurricane Katrina, National Gaurdsmen were ordered to go door to door and confiscate guns. That's illegal. They did it anyway.

What if there really was a war between politicians who wanted to confiscate guns? Who's side would you be on? The government's, who pays you or the people you serious to protect?

I've given this a great deal of thought, but come to no conclusions. Nazi soldiers just followed orders, do our troops share the same ethics?

The "Nuremberg Principles" were established after the prosecution of Nazi war criminals, many of whom either defended their actions as "following orders" or "following Germany's sovereign laws." Neither of these defenses was deemed acceptable.

The "Nuremberg Principles" are:

1. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

2. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

3. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

4. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

5. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

6. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a) Crimes against peace
b) War crimes
c) Crimes against humanity

7. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle 6 is a crime under international law.

http://www.nurembergfilm.org/trial_nuremberg_principles.shtml

The MOST relevant Principle listed above to the question is Nuremberg Principle 4: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

So, NO Service Member should obey an illegal or unconstitutional order. If the US Government (or any State Government as it relates to the National Guard) orders Service Members to violate a morally viable law and/or the US Constitution, Service Members have a Legal and Moral obligation to disobey those orders.

There are many worthy case studies that we might look at to help Service Members develop an Ethical Intuition to aid in future decision making. In the case brought before us ("President Trump says he’ll deploy military to states if they don’t stop violent protests"), we can examine the circumstances without consideration of the "politics" associated with them.

The First Amendment to the Constitution acknowledges the Natural Right of The People to "... PEACEABLY...assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [EMPHASIS ADDED]. Regardless of the where we line up on Trump or the circumstances surrounding George Floyd's tragic death, we cannot escape the fact that the riots and looting that occurred throughout the nation were anything but "Peaceful" -- and attempts by anyone to categorize them as "peaceful" should undergo psychiatric evaluation by competent medical professionals The fact that the riots and looting resulted in over 25 people dead and over half a billion in property damage should dissuade us of any illusion of PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY. Ergo, the President had the LEGAL authority to call on the Military to put down an insurrection and restore lawful peace and order under 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b -- just as President George H.W. Bush had during the LA Riots in 1992.

The next question that we have to ask: Is the 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b "Moral?" That depends on the situation... If the Government is violating the National Charter (the Declaration) and the National Bylaws (the Constitution), then enforcement of and obedience to orders given under the auspices of 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b may NOT have a moral basis, and Service Members are not obligated to follow them. In the case of the George Floyd riots, the Government was in the process of redressing the injustices involved in that tragedy. So, the violent uprisings that followed were neither justified nor proportional. Therefore, the exercise of 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b would certainly have been moral.

Therefore, IF President Trump ordered the US Military to aid in the suppression of a violent insurrection (which he did not) pursuant to 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b, then US Service Members would have had to obey these as "Lawful Orders."