So if Constitutionality is determined ONLY by the courts, then how do we explain the oath taken by the various entities, including political officers, law enforcement officers, and military personnel?
So, when I took the Navy Officer's Oath that stipulated I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic... How do I fulfill those duties without having any notion of the Constitutionality of orders received?
I can't personally DEFEND something, if I can't personally DEFINE it.... right then and there.
Fortunately, most of the Constitution is rather simple. It's understandable by most people.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that, as an officer, if I executed unconstitutional orders, I can't later defend my actions by saying, "I was just following orders."
As an officer, I was duty-bound to follow only LAWFUL / Constitutional orders. There was no provision for me to defer to a court. There was an assumption that I had a MODICUM of knowledge and critical thought. I couldn't just blindly follow orders and then claim "I didn't know" as a defense in the case of criminal actions. I also couldn't say "Hang on a sec... let's see what the courts say about that."
So, while it may be true that ULTIMATELY, the courts have the final say in constitutionality. As a PRACTICAL matter, those charged with executing the business of the people via the government, must make that decision THEMSELVES, on the fly.
To flatly ignore the Constitution while executing the business of the people cannot and won't be excused by claims of ignorance or "just following orders" or "we'll let the courts decide it later."
