Having been taught something of the meaning of the Constitution, and taking very seriously his role as an American soldier, he instinctively understood that something fundamental was involved in the involuntary change made in his uniform. Having been taught to stand up for what he believes is right, regardless of how many stand with him, Michael did not find it a particularly difficult decision. In fact, he didn't even consult with his parents - he simply went to his chain of command and politely informed them that he had a problem with the order. The national reaction, which has been much more favorable than unfavorable, has been overwhelming to my family. They greatly feared a standing army, and they feared politicians who, being mortals, tend to use and abuse whatever power they have.
Some people take that oath more seriously than others.
When an order is given to a soldier, regardless of where in the hierarchy that order originates, it is imperative that the order be consistent with the Constitution. If not, there is not only no reason to obey the order, but there is every reason to refuse to do so. It was on this basis that Michael New made his decision. There are two primary schools of thought on this issue. The first is represented by those who see it only in light of obedience and discipline.