> On May 19, 2015, at 9:04 AM, Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> But in this specific case, a system government did not yet exist. The security was being sought for the Constitutional Convention aimed at creating said government. So the PC noble was asking for Marines to be placed at his personal disposal. Tactical command remained with the Marine lieutenant who was placed in charge of the platoon by the ship's Marine commander. The PC noble could tell his "borrowed" Marines what should be done, but not how to do it.
>>
>
> Thus very neatly demonstrating what 'Rule of Man’ v. 'Rule of Law' actually boils down to in practice. The captain of that cruiser has ‘Age of Sail’-like autonomy over his ship, forces and use thereof, and the authority to do what the Baron asked him; he also had the authority to oh-so-politely decline.

Also, the baronial heir, due to his feudal relationship to the Emperor, has the authority to make the request (Feudal obligations run down as well as up). Had he outranked the captain (who no doubt has a duty title attached to his rank as captain, and is likely Baron or higher) he could well have just ordered him to do it, for instance, the ranking noble of a subsector, or certainly the sector Duchess could. That the noble making the request was the heir not the actual title holder would make the Captains job a lot easier in this case.

The cruiser Captain could very well decline the request in that case but he would then likely have to make his case at his court martial, on the grounds that obeying the noble would directly conflict with his orders as given by the Emperor.

Depending on where the trial were held, this could prove dicey.

--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs