The dispute comes from Colorado — but it could have national implications for Trump and his political fate.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t think it does. Soldiers are already required to disobey illegal orders anyway.

    • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      That’s a good point. Does that extend explicitly to orders from people not in their chain of command? There MUST be something in the UCMJ about it.

      Under Murray’s (Colorado’s) argument that the insurrection disqualification is self enforcing and necessarily instant, that would mean Pence was the president until the Biden transition, wouldn’t it?

      • kescusay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, Murray’s argument wouldn’t apply to someone already occupying the office. Unfortunately, once someone is actually holding the office, they can only be removed by impeachment.

        • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I don’t think I agree with that, and I did hear one of the male justices (I can’t match names to voices) ask about it. Impeachment is provided as a means to remove someone from office, but nowhere does it say that it’s the ONLY way to remove someone.