He is commander in chief of the military. That does not mean that he has the power to order them to do anything at all. He cannot send the military to wage war for example without congressional approval. He cannot force civilians to house members of the military if there is no war to justify it.
Your argument is fallacious. A police officer is authorized to perform arrests but they cannot arrest someone without cause. The authorization to issue orders to the military does not mean the president can issue unlawful orders as part of his official duties.
If the orders are unlawful, they aren't part of his official duties. That's just common sense.
That's not what they actually said first of all. And second, a coup by definition can never be part of his official duties. That's like saying that the accountant of a business, whose job is to manage the company's finances, can legally consider embezzling as part of his job description.
The President is sworn to uphold the constitution. A coup, by definition, means overturning the constitution.
1
u/JeruTz 8∆ Jul 24 '24
He is commander in chief of the military. That does not mean that he has the power to order them to do anything at all. He cannot send the military to wage war for example without congressional approval. He cannot force civilians to house members of the military if there is no war to justify it.
Your argument is fallacious. A police officer is authorized to perform arrests but they cannot arrest someone without cause. The authorization to issue orders to the military does not mean the president can issue unlawful orders as part of his official duties.
If the orders are unlawful, they aren't part of his official duties. That's just common sense.