(02-08-2020, 12:37 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 11:44 AM)mikesez Wrote: People disagree about what the law says all the time.
This is all handled by legal staff who are smarter than you or me. Soldiers are adults. The consequences of obeying orders could be death. And there are real consequences for disobeying orders as well, even though there is sometimes a duty to disobey.
A soldier with a sincere and reasonable disagreement is unlikely to face punishment beyond reassignment if the higher level staff disagree with how he reads or understands the law. but a soldier just seems to me making trouble and doesn't seem to be sincere or reasonable about why they think the thing is illegal, could be discharged, perhaps even dishonorably discharged.
If a majority of the House of Representatives and constitutional scholars agree with Vindman, he belongs in the first category, not the second.

You simply don’t understand how the government or military work. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: you don’t have to have an opinion on everything. 

The majority of the House agreeing with you means nothing when they make their decisions based on politics. Anyone with a modicum of understanding in basic criminal law / case law can tell you that there was no legal standing for obstruction and abuse of powers for impeachment. I wouldn’t use the House agreeing with Vindman as a justification for his actions. They would’ve done the same for anyone that furthered their agenda.

You simply don't understand the constitution.
The branches are co-equal and can use their delegated powers and responsibilities with their own sole discretion. High crimes and misdemeanors was understood to be a broad term, inclusive of abuse of power. But even if it were not so, The house was given some discretion to decide what high crimes and misdemeanors are, and the Senate sole discretion to decide what the consequences should be.

---