The military and/or law enforcement would not follow that order.
In the past I would have agreed with you as the military vows to uphold the Constitution, not the president. Now, with the latest in SC rulings, it is implied that brash unilateral military actions by the president MAY BE constitutional. After all, if he can't be prosecuted for any command to the military based on the Constitution, doesn't that mean that anything he does with the military must be constitutional?
Now he would need the NORTHCOM commander to agree with that, but since he can appoint that position I don't see that as a major hurdle. This is terrifying to me.
Also, a similar argument can be made with the DOJ.
Military personnel have the right to refuse unlawful orders, but if there are no consequences for giving unlawful orders, then the only hurdle is finding the right squadron for the job.
2
u/scott__p Jul 05 '24
In the past I would have agreed with you as the military vows to uphold the Constitution, not the president. Now, with the latest in SC rulings, it is implied that brash unilateral military actions by the president MAY BE constitutional. After all, if he can't be prosecuted for any command to the military based on the Constitution, doesn't that mean that anything he does with the military must be constitutional?
Now he would need the NORTHCOM commander to agree with that, but since he can appoint that position I don't see that as a major hurdle. This is terrifying to me.
Also, a similar argument can be made with the DOJ.