Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
...Hmmm, this reasoning, applied to the U.S. would leave us in a quandry if the President ordered the military to arrest every member of the Congress. Under separation of powers, the Courts would have no power to compell any member of the military to disobey an order of the President, and under our Constitution, the courts have no power to remove the President from office, and without a Congress in place, the President could continue on in power legally.....
|
Actually no.
The Congress must initiate impeachment proceedings, but the military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, as defined by the SCOTUS, and is NOT answerable to the president as the highest authority.
Just as the military is required to disobey an unlawful oder by a superior in the armed forced, it is also required to disobey unlawful oders by the predisent, CIC.
This is why the unitary executive argument is so important.
If one were to accept the unitary executive argument, then the president would be the final word on what all members of the executive did.
But that has never been the case in the past.
In fact, after the Civil War, Congress was directing the military directly, and was by passing Andrew Johnson.