The colonel will not be seeing those documents. The trial judge advocate will present that the United States House of Rep and the U.S. Senate counted the electoral ballots. Each of which was duly accepted and submitted by each of the 50 states. The election results were certified on JAN 6 2010 and that is the end of the matter. The Military judge will not accept the need to go beyond the acceptance and certification by Congress. Nice try though.
BULL CRAP!! Do You get your Paycheck from OBAMA-SOROS, INC.?
“Nice try though.”
Your assuming the military doesn’t want the answer, and second, it would invite an appeal in federal court to deny such a demand.
It’s not that the military will refuse to request documents to prove eligibility, it is that is yet another case will highlight the fact that what’s-his-name once again refuses to humble himself by providing documentation of his birth including his parent’s names and their citizenship status at the time of his birth.
All in all, if he is indeed eligible, a $12 official certificate detailing the standard information would score huge points for his credibility. But at this point anyone with half a brain knows he is hiding information and furthermore one can reasonably speculate he has eligibility problems.
You have convinced me. We are history. (Toast). We cannot even uncover the truth by the sacrifice of a brave soldier. Legal mumbo jumbo has a chilling effect on hope for a brighter day. At the SC, the only reflective concern is the commerce clause, the other parts of the document can be rolled for the toilet.
Then the judge is abdicating his responsibility. As the Supreme Court has. Scalia told my sister, when she asked why they hadn’t accepted any of the cases: “If the electorate don’t care about it, why should we stick our necks out?”
You’re a white flag waving defeatist eeyore.
Where in the Constitution does it say that if Congress certifies a president it no longer matters if they don’t meet the Constitutional requirements?
If Congress certifies an unconstitutional president it just means that they were either negligent or criminal - neither of which nullifies the requirements of the Constitution, which still stand.
Let's see now, should the above quote not be enough for you with a "nice try," or is that quote just taken out of thin air and rhetoric???
“The colonel will not be seeing those documents.”
***
If that’s the way it goes, it will be a miscarriage of justice.
Miscarriage of justice, legal definition. n. “The unjust and inappropriate outcome of a court proceeding.”
That is consistent with how the usurper is abusing his power, ignoring the Constitution, and proceeding in bad faith, both in the carrying out his duties, and also by not disclosing in good faith, any of his authentic records and documents.
Disclosure of the truth by our government to the people it theoretically governs, has suffered the same fate as 50 million babies have since Roe v. Wade.
That is the correct legal response. As I have written on many occassions here, nearly every state has a process for challenging the qualifications of a candidate at the time the candidate's name is placed upon the ballot, not after the election is held and certified. This process applies to all federal, state, and local offices. The challenges to a candidate's qualifications are required to take place before the election because elections are expensive and certainty is required to produce an orderly result and transition.