[Golf1echo]

Seems I have derailed the original post, did not intend for that to be the case. To respond to your post because of the quote: The oath is the one we take within the military and has to do with chain of command.
Your quote: "There appears to be a built-in caveat intended to nullify the "just following orders" defense when POTUS and officers go off the Constitutional rail"
When I served that would have been well above my pay grade. I no longer am in that chain of command and know who I respect and don't respect based on my understanding, opinion, and observations. The question you raise is much like the original questions we once faced " Taxation without representation" and others. The Constitution is a well thought out document written by better men than myself, it has guided us very well through many different events in history and is as enduring as any. For me it is sad to see what I regard as abuse of it for personal and political agendas...Should someone disagree with (or parts of ) the Constitution they need to embark on the process of changing the document not circumventing it... The system is designed to balance those abuses out in judicial, executive, and legislative branches . Yes that can be a long and drawn out process and yes there are to many lawyers, politicians, and agendas involved but those are the built in checks and balances.

Another of your quotes: " Naturally, the job of determining whether questionable orders are legal falls to the JAG and possibly Eric Holder" In the long run the courts and history will decide. As said American Soldiers take the oath to support and defend the Constitution...

Good luck with the e h thing he is part of the problem...