Skip to comments.Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works
Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
They are separate and independent ‘requirements’ but joined by/with/in the declaration of eligibility. As I noted the key is the use and placement of the word ‘neither’ that many people ignore intentionally or unintentionally.
” He/she is delighted w the chance to expound on the merits of conservatism, and why he/she embraces it.”
I’ve done so for 12,000 posts. But the topic of THIS thread isn’t what conservative ideas sound great. It is taking an originalist approach to interpreting the US Constitution, which is generally a conservative view.
Why do you think we should substitute YOUR ideas for the legal words used by the Founders?
“a liberal pretending to be a conservative. Thats just too dishonest.”
LOL, you’re really desperate, aren’t you? Where have I pretended anything? I simply declined to sit for your ridiculous loyalty test.
And I notice you’ve ducked Mr Rogers’s question again.
Talk about dishonest! You have no shame, have you?
You have answered none of them, except that you apparently believe we need to add in a loyalty test based on genetics.
Your view appears to be, ‘If I just get nastier and nastier, sooner or later I can force this person to do what I demand he/she should do’.
Pardon me, but that is just stupid.
“Pardon me, but that is just stupid.”
Of course. How stupid to think that someone in the middle of a discussion would answer a clearly posed question without first requiring the person who asked it to submit to a grilling about his political history.
What on earth could I have been thinking? Why would I imagine that the person was just doing a silly dance to avoid answering the question?
Indeed I have answered all questions. Advise you go back and read my prior posts. I will not repeat/retype the info ad infinitum. (I really thought you were reading my posts the first time. If I had suspected you were merely skimming or reading w’out comprehension, I’d have stopped responding sooner.)
Truly, you write fantasy.
You have a nice day too, Mr Rogers.
The quotes you gave prove my point: Judge Lind ruled that even if the original authorization for the orders were given by Joseph Stalin, the orders would be “lawful”. If Joseph Stalin had taken an oath of office to be POTUS and ordered combat in Iran (for instance), all the orders down the chain of command would be lawful, according to what Lind ruled. Wouldn’t matter one bit if the decision to engage in combat was made by a foreign enemy combatant.
Right? That’s what she said?
IOW, if Joseph Stalin told the chain of command to go to war with Iran, every order down the chain of command would be independent of Stalin and would thus be lawful - as long as Joseph Stalin took an oath of office to be POTUS.
Right? That’s what she said?
Or did she say that Chuck Hagel, if approved as SecDef, could unilaterally decide to bomb Israel without any approval by anybody else, and all the orders down the chain of command would be lawful?
Or did she say that any officer can order the men under his command to hop on a plane to go to war against Iran or Israel - totally independently of someone acting as President or any of the other people in the chain of command?
Take your pick. Is she saying that all orders under a sworn-in Joseph Stalin are lawful, that Lt Col’s can initiate combat action against foreign countries by orders independent from the chain of command, or both?
Who has the power to declare war? Does the President declare war?
Were we in Afghanistan because the President unilaterally ordered troops there?
Where does authority to issue orders involving combat ultimately reside?
“Right? Thats what she said?”
Well, that’s a little closer. I believe that what she said was, essentially, if your commanding officer gives you an order, and it’s not an order to commit an explicitly illegal act, you have to obey it, regardless of who the President is.
The question was not whether he had to obey it. The question was whether the order was LAWFUL.
And she said that the eligibility of the President who approved the combat operations was irrelevant to the lawfulness of the orders. IOW, even if it was an ineligible POTUS (like, say, Joseph Stalin) who ordered combat operations (on, say, Iran), all the smaller orders to carry that out would be lawful.
So what she effectively said was that as long as Joseph Stalin took an oath to become POTUS, he can order combat operations and all the orders to carry out that operation are lawful. There is nothing in our Constitution, laws, or military codes that would put ANY OBSTACLE in the way of Joseph Stalin using the chain of command to do whatever combat operations he desires - even if everybody in the military knew he was ineligible and a foreign enemy combatant. If the military had evidence that a foreign enemy combatant was in the White House their only response could ever be to roll over and say, “So what? That’s totally irrelevant to what we do.”
Right? That’s what she said?
You tell me. What do the Constitution, War Powers Act, and the Authorization to Use Force all say about that?
Judge Lind said it can’t be the President. Neither the Constitution, War Powers Act, nor the Authorization to Use Force place that responsibility on someone acting as President. The President is IRRELEVANT to the lawfulness of combat operations, she said
So who then? You tell me.
Right now, who would have the legal authority to tell my nephews in the USMC to climb on a plane to Iran for combat operations there? What do the Constitution, War Powers Act, the Authorization to Use Force, and standard military protocols and chain of command say about that?
“Right? Thats what she said?”
No, now you’re getting further away again.
Think about it, Butter. The Army has been in business for a long time, and they live or die on whether people can be counted on to obey their orders. Have you ever been in the military? Everyone who has knows that you have to obey your orders. The rules are very strict and they are stacked against you: It’s in the Army’s interests to make sure that orders are not disobeyed, and they’ve constructed the rules accordingly.
If your commanding officer tells you to report to his office, you better report to his office. Lakin’s commanding officer ordered him to report to his office. He was absolutely authorized to give that order, so it was a lawful order. Lakin had the obligation to obey it. He did not.
That’s all the court-martial was about. Lakin was stupid enough to believe that he could make it into a trial of the President, but that was a dumb pipe dream, and Col. Lind’s ruling makes it very clear why that was the case. I’m sorry you’re unhappy with it, but I haven’t yet heard anyone knowledgeable about military law say that she called this one wrong.
If Congress had authorized and funded operations in Iran, then a lot of officers could do it. I’ve deployed overseas on verbal orders from my squadron commander.
I’m not talking about who has to obey orders. I’m talking about the LAWFULNESS of orders.
And Lind said that whether the President is QUALIFIED makes NO DIFFERENCE to the lawfulness of the orders. IOW, it could be Osama Bin Laden himself telling the military to carry out combat operations, and the military would all just have to bow and obey.
That’s what she said. Right?
And you’re agreeing with her?
So right now, at this very moment, who would have the legal authority to order my nephews in the USMC to get on a plane to Iran for combat operations there?
I said that wrong. She didn’t just say that the whole military would have to bow and obey if Osama Bin Laden took an oath to be POTUS and commanded combat operations. She said all the orders given to carry that out would be LAWFUL. There is nothing in the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization to Use Force, or military protocols or chain of command that prohibits orders carried out by somebody unable to Constitutionally “act as President”.
If Congress had authorized operations in Iran, which they have not, then darn near anyone above them in the chain of command. There are documents created authorizing slots for manning. Those are normally signed by the SecDef, IIRC. The positions are funded by Congress, which gives Congressional approval. The individual who fills that slot is normally commanded to go by their CO or by an office that works manning across the service. When I deployed, I was, IIRC, #54 on a list of 57, but I was a volunteer so that made me #1 to go.
Lakin was ordered to go where Congress had authorized and funded operations for years. I deployed to Afghanistan in 2007. Don’t remember who signed my orders, but it sure wasn’t GWB.
Authority to engage in combat comes from Congress. They do not need to declare war, just agree to fund it. That has been ruled as the functional equivalent of declaring war.
The President cannot declare war. He can authorize combat operations for a short time by permission of Congress, which recognizes that we often need a faster response than Congress will give.
See: War Powers Resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
I am just breezing over what you say because I’m looking for a specific rebuttal to what I said. When Lind said that the eligibility of the President is “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of orders, that means it doesn’t matter if it was somebody ineligible - like Joseph Stalin. Right?
If Joseph Stalin had been President and everybody knew he was ineligible, how would Lind’s decision have been any different? According to her own words, it would be irrelevant even if the whole wide world knew that the guy was ineligible and got into office through forgery, fraud, perjury, and treason. That’s what she said. Right?
And the reason I want to bring this point home is because I was in the middle of getting the evidence to show to this judge, and she ruled that it didn’t matter. She said - as if directly addressing me - that I could have a videotape of the guy admitting that he had committed perjury, forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, and treason, and it would make absolutely no difference. The guy could be sitting in Gitmo as a foreign enemy combatant, and the military would still be “lawfully” doing whatever he tells them to do, throughout the chain of command. That’s what she said. That is what her ruling means.
I just want you and everybody else to come eyeball to eyeball with the full impact of what she said. She is saying that even after taking the oaths to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, every person in the military would HAVE to obey a known foreign enemy combatant in the White House, with no recourse - because nothing they do is subject to the requirements of the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization to Use Force, or the regulations of the military which expressly state that orders not in compliance with the US Constitution are UNLAWFUL.
I just want you to say it loud, say it proud: If Joseph Stalin took an oath of office to be POTUS, everything the chain of command ordered at his bidding would be lawful and nobody could ever LAWFULLY even legally challenge the lawfulness of anything. There is NO WAY for an officer to successfully keep his oath of office if the country elects Joseph Stalin. The only oath he can actually keep is to protect and defend the US Constitution if it never NEEDS to be protected because the voters already ARE protecting it.
IOW, the military requires officers to take oaths they can never keep. If the system wasn’t already stacked in favor of the foreign enemy combatant, I’d say Lakin and the others would have a good case for saying the US military is guilty of entrapment - requiring something they know is not possible, because they MAKE it impossible.
I’m not asking any if’s. And I’m not reading anything that doesn’t specifically address what I said. RIGHT NOW, who would have the legal authority to order my nephews in the USMC to board a plane to Iran for combat operations there?
Give me the name of a specific person or body who could give that order at this very moment, and the legal document that gives them the authority to do it.
If you make it comparable, and ask who could send your nephews to Afghanistan right now, then again - darn near anyone in their chain of command.
For an OPLAN, the document is a TPFDD: Time-Phased Force Deployment Data. It may have a different name under contingency planning, and I don't know which is being used for Afghanistan right now. But the principle remains: the document creates slots, like job openings, if you will. And anyone with the qualifications can be plugged into one of those slots. The document is created under the SecDef's authority, IIRC. That honestly isn't something I had to deal with.
Once created, a commander can put one of their people into it, or is tasked to commit so many people to go. In some cases, and entire squadron would be committed. I had limited experience with TPFDDs, other than in some static forms.
Lots of people could sign the orders - pretty much any commander in the chain. Since Congress funds it, it is authorized by Congress via the military. But no, the President of the USA doesn't sign the orders.
And as long as Obama is accepted by the government as President, he could sign the orders if he wished. The legality of the orders would remain, because he signs them as President, not as an individual. Just as Obamacare would remain a law if Obama was found to be Kenyan-born, so would any military orders he signed (if he could be found to sign them). It is the office that has the authority, not the individual.
In this case:
“According to appellant, the prosecution failed to prove that he had received a lawful order because the order was in furtherance of actions which he viewed as illegal — the deployment of American troops to the Republic of Macedonia and the development of command and control functions and associated uniform requirements. As noted in the majority opinion, these matters were properly resolved by the military judge under the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine. See Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 6-12 (1973).
The political question doctrine serves a particularly important function in military trials by ensuring that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government. Since the days of George Washington, America has demonstrated that military professionalism is compatible with civilian control of the armed forces. With few exceptions, American military personnel have been faithful to the concept that once their advice has been tendered and considered, they are duty-bound to implement whatever policy decisions the civilian leadership may make.
Appellant would have us change the nature of that relationship by requiring courts-martial to adjudicate the relationships between Congress and the President regarding the deployment of military forces. Consider, for example, the implications of appellant’s approach in the context of the Korean conflict, where adversity in frozen fields far from home intensified a bitter national debate over the propriety of U.S. participation in an undeclared war conducted under the United Nations’ auspices. Under appellant’s approach, courts-martial would have been authorized to adjudicate the relationships between Congress and the President, potentially permitting members of the armed forces to disobey unpopular orders. There is nothing in the more than 2 centuries of our history as a Nation that suggests courts-martial should be empowered to rule on the propriety of deployment orders as a matter of either constitutional or military law.”
Nice, you resort to insults and projection ... AND you simply can't read. The citation you quoted doesn't say anything about Obama. Second, this conclusion by the Indiana court was not supported by an actual legal precedent, It was only used as a rationale for the court to say it didn't have to accept the plaintiffs' argument. Read it and weep.
To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Do you understand what that is saying?? It doesn't say Obama is a natural-born citizen. It simply says that because the court doesn't have to accept the plaintiffs' argument as true because the court THINK's their interpretation of the Supreme Court conflicts the plaintiffs' argument. It's a bait and switch. If they had an actual precedent that supported their "guidance," they could have said Obama was eligible for office, but they never said this ANYWHERE in their decision. All they said was:
Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs‟ case.
Sorry, but a "specifice reference" would contain his name. The part you quoted does NOT contian his name. They COULDN'T say that Obama was a natural-born citizen because they had no legal proof Obama was born in the United States. Read the decision. As I explained to rogers, this is a circular statement. Look at the first part: they says, "Based on the language of the Article II, Section I, Clause 4: ... nothing in that language says persons are NBC if they are born in within the United States "regardless of the citizenship of their parents." And the court admitted by footnote that there is no "guidance" in Wong Kim Ark that makes ANYONE a natural-born citizen "regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a natural born Citizen using the Constitution‟s Article II language ...
All they did was create a reason NOT to accept the plaintiffs' argument AND to say the lower court did not err. That's not the same thing as making a positive declaration that Obama is a natural-born citizen.
You said that combat operations were authorized for Afghanistan. Who authorized those? Under the Authorization for the Use of Force that Congress gave in the War on Terror (shortly after 9-11-01), who did Congress say had the sole responsibility to decide when, where, and to what extent force would be used in the war on terror? I don’t believe Afghanistan was specifically mentioned, nor any other country; it was left to one specific person to decide when, where, and to what extent combat would be employed to confront terrorism. What person was that?
IOW, combat in Iran or any other country including Afghanistan WAS authorized, but with the stipulation that combat in any specific place could only happen when one specific person decided there would be combat operations there. What person is that? What one person could - right now - order my nephews in the USMC to board a plane to Iran to engage in combat there? Why can’t anybody else give that order RIGHT NOW?
There were only two persons under consideration in Ankeny v Daniels, John McCain and Barack Obama. The three judge panel had already discussed Senator McCain’s eligibility and they then moved on to discuss Barack Obama.
The section of the decision that I referenced begins with: “With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.” Everything that follows is in reference to Obama.
Parse the words of the ruling to your heart’s content. The Ankeny ruling ordered that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was found to have acted properly in issuing Certificates of Ascertainment for the Indiana Electoral votes to Barack Obama’s Electors in 2008.
The plaintiffs had stipulated in the original jurisdiction lawsuit that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This lawsuit was based on the legal theory that Barack Obama Senior’s birth in Kenya, East Africa rendered his son ineligible under Emerrich de Vatell’s Law of Nations position on natural born citizens.
The Ankeny ruling has been used as precedent in many subsequent eligibility decisions. For example, in Larry Klayman’s Florida ballot challenge, the judge hearing the reconsideration lawsuit after the first lawsuit was dismissed quoted from the Ankeny decision: Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court: In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a natural born citizen even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.September 6, 2012
Congress authorized President GW Bush to determine WHERE the war on terror would require operations. By then funding it, they gave their approval. That was the subject of a court case concerning Kosovo, and the court found that funding combat by Congress was the same as Congress authorizing combat operations, since they wouldn’t fund what they did not approve.
So again, CONGRESS - which has responsibility for declaring war - authorizes combat operations.
The President does not have the right to declare war. As CINC, he supervises the war, but Congress retains the power of the purse. If Congress doesn’t pay for operations, the President cannot pay the fuel to move anyone anywhere.
Further, you are ignoring the fact that Obama IS recognized as the President by the Congress, and therefor they give him the authority to act as such. If Congress desired it, they could remove Obama from office tomorrow. Congress, not the courts, has authority to remove a sitting President, just as they had the right to reject all of his electoral votes if they believed him unqualified.
Further, Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. All 3 branches of government recognize Obama as President. Obama IS currently the President of the USA. He has been put there by the votes of a majority of voters, two times, and accepted in office by Congress and the courts.
The US military cannot overthrow a sitting President. I believe Jim Robinson once pointed that out to you, in a discussion concerning Lakin - that the military doesn’t determine who the president is. The voters and Congress and the courts do that.
I am ashamed that a majority of Americans voted Obama in office once. Far worse was that they did it a second time. But that is the REAL WORLD - a place birthers don’t recognize since they do not live there.
In 2001-2005, GW BUsh was President. The loonie left could claim he was selected, not elected, but it didn’t matter. The American people believed GWB won without the majority vote. All 50 states, most members of Congress and thus the courts accepted him as President. Then as now, the military didn’t get to decide. We do not live in a banana republic, where the President serves at the pleasure of the military.
I have no idea why you think the military determines who the President is, but you are wrong.
“Do you understand what that is saying?”
Yes, because I am sane and you are not. You are one of the very few people stupid enough and crazy enough to think the Ankeny decision didn’t conclude that Obama was and is a NBC, eligible to hold office. Birthers may not live in the real world, but even 99% of birthers are better connected with reality than you are.
“...... He lost his natural born citizenship status,forever,when he was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in 1968.......”
How did 0 get to be a natural born citizen in the first place?????
Look, pal, I never said that Obama gave the orders to Lakin. I said that if Joseph Stalin had taken an oath to be POTUS and ordered the military to do combat operations, all the orders that were given to carry that out would be lawful, according to Lind.
And that IS what she said.
You’re a waste of my time.
The Authorization for the Use of Force did not mention Bush by name, IIRC. It used a different term for the person - which indicated Congress specifically made the LEGAL authority to decide where and when we would use combat dependent on the POSITION. A position that GW Bush was not holding when Lakin received his orders.
What position was that?
The OFFICE of the President?
You Do realize, do you not, that Congress & the Supreme Court, along with all 50 states, every foreign country and every government entity consider Obama to be the President of the US?
And you DO realize that CONGRESS has authorized combat operations in Afghanistan, as the Constitution allows, and the President only administers what they have authorized?
While the order to go to his CO’s office had NOTHING to do with Obama, the order to deploy was fully legal - authorized and funded by Congress, under the Constitution. The slot existed. The ARMY filled it with a body. And the ARMY had the right to fill that slot.
Anyone who refuses to obey an order does so at his own risk. If the order is obviously illegal - a crime - then he will be found innocent. But there was NOTHING illegal about an order to deploy. Even if Congress found Obama ineligible and threw him out of office in special session this afternoon, all the military deployment orders of the last 4+ years would still have been valid and legal. And that is in part because CONGRESS authorized the action! The President cannot start a war unilaterally. He can only administer what Congress allows. The war in Afghanistan is a function of the US Government, not Obama.
As Jim Robinson has pointed out to you before, it isn’t the job of the military to decide who sits in the Oval Office. As many others, including me, have pointed out: The civilians control the military, not the other way around. And frankly, the Founders would have been appalled that any American would have argued otherwise.
Lakin’s duty wasn’t to Obama. It was to the USA. The enlisted I knew who tried to refuse to deploy because GWB was “selected, not elected”, faced a similar choice: deploy or go to jail. They didn’t have the right to decide President Bush wasn’t a valid President. And it is shameful that you think they had that right...
If Joseph Stalin was elected to the Presidency by the majority of voters of the USA, IAW the Electoral College, and approved and accepted as such by Congress, and took an oath from the CJ of the Supreme Court,
and if he had gone to Congress and been given approval for combat operations, and Congress funded the costs of the war, then
yes, the orders that were given to carry that out would be lawful.
But your hypothetical is stupid.
Let me propose to you a hypothetical in a separate field. Suppose that a young man named Joe Stalin applies to his state licensing agency to take the test to receive a physicians license. Suppose that the licensing board fails to discover that young Joe is lacking some required prerequisite to take the test and he then takes the test, passes the test and is given a license to practice medicine in the state.
Suppose that "Dr. Stalin" then begins practicing medicine in a large hospital and after performing a relatively routine surgery writes an order that the patient should be given an important medicine at 7:00 p.m. that evening. Nurse Penelope is assigned that patient that evening. Nurse Penelope once dated Dr. Stalin and she knows that Dr. Stalin did not have all of the proper prerequisites to take his licensing test. She thus concludes that Dr. Stalin should not have been permitted to take his licensing test, that Dr. Stalin should not have received a license and that Dr. Stalin is not her mind a real doctor. Accordingly, when she learns shortly before 7:00 p.m. that "Dr. Stalin" has been treating the patient, she refuses to provide the patient with the prescription medicine ordered by Dr. Stalin. The patient does not die, but becomes temporarily very sick because administration of the medicine was delayed until after Penelope finds her supervisor and tells her supervisor that she won't comply with Dr. Stalin's orders (because in her mind he isn't really a doctor) and the supervisor later finds someone else to administer the medicine.
The supervisor then reports this incident to hospital administrators, who fire poor Penelope for what the hospital deems to be "just cause" as described in the termination provisions of her employment contract. Penelope then sues the hospital, claiming that there was no "just cause" for her termination because she could not in good conscience behave as though Dr. Stalin's orders were the orders of a real, qualified treating physician.
You be the judge.
You are right. The military made a point of pressing charges that would keep the whole eligibility issue out of the question.
That wasn’t because the military was worried about LOSING on the legality of orders to deploy to combat, but because they didn’t want to give Lakin a microphone for him to spew nonsense over. Lakin was going to lose either way. The military chose an approach that robbed Lakin of what he & his idiot supporters wanted: a platform for their nonsense. It was an intelligent and effective move by the prosecutors.
The Democrats largely opposed the Korean War. There were folks then who wanted to avoid deploying based on it being an unconstitutional war. None of them received any sympathy. Nor should Lakin. It isn’t the military’s job to decide those issues. That belongs to Congress.
“That wasnt because the military was worried about LOSING on the legality of orders to deploy to combat, but because they didnt want to give Lakin a microphone for him to spew nonsense over. Lakin was going to lose either way.”
Yes, I think that’s correct. And in Footnote 3, toward the end of her ruling, Col. Lind mentions in passing the de facto officer doctrine:
“The Court recognizes the existence of the de facto officer doctrine, recognized and described by the Supreme Court 111 Ryder v. U.S, 515 U.S 177 (1995). In light of the Court’s ruling that judicial review of the issues of whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is otherwise qualified under the Constitution to hold office is precluded by the political question doctrine, the Court declines to address the applicability of the de facto officer doctrine in this case.”
It’s interesting to me that she cites as her reason for not invoking it the political question doctrine. I might have expected her instead to depend on the fact that the orders didn’t come from the President. But I’m not the Chief Judge of the 1st Judicial Circuit, so I’m happy to defer to her understanding of the law.
The one on the bottom looks a lot like Nurse Penelope. ;-)
No, what would be equivalent is that the nurse follows orders for about 2 years while she asks for the medical community to check into the dr’s credentials. They refuse, saying that if he’s dispensing medicine he must already be a qualified doctor. So she refuses to dispense the prescriptions that this follower of the Hemlock Society prescribes, saying it violates the Hippocratic Oath that she took, to preserve life - in order to force somebody to examine whether this guy is from the Hemlock Society and only got his license through fraud, forgery, and perjury.
They fire her and throw her in jail because she didn’t follow orders, saying it wouldn’t matter if he got his license through fraud and was really a member of the Hemlock Society intending to kill his patients. Even if the nurse KNEW he was dispensing medicines with the intent to kill, his intentions/qualifications/crimes committed to get his license would be “irrelevant”. Her job is just to do as she is told; the Hippocratic Oath she took means nothing.
Now you be the judge.
However, if I'm the judge and poor Penelope came to me with the story that you have forced upon her, I would order a preliminary mental examination for her.
And, until the licensing authority decides to pull Dr. Stalin's license, I would continue to treat him as he is - a licensed physician.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.