. . . . # 122 for David's comment.
(SP alert, too.)
Posted on 09/16/2010 10:33:25 PM PDT by STARWISE
*snip*
Today’s statement relates specifically to the ongoing courts-martial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
September 3, 2010 – Upon receiving word that LTC Lakin would be denied any and all access to discovery and mitigating evidence needed to provide for a legitimate defense, a White Paper was prepared and released by The United States Patriots Union and The United States Bar Association, advising the Lakin defense team to immediately adjust its defense strategy in accordance with established history and law concerning Mr. Barack Obama’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.
In short, to drop the search for an insignificant birth certificate and focus on the right question at hand. A second White Paper was published last week.
We believe that there are only two potential outcomes of this courts-martial, and that both outcomes bring certain challenges. Our first priority must be to unite in defense of LTC Lakin in an effort to arrive at the best possible outcome for both Lakin and the nation.
*snip*
It is our opinion that the existing legal team representing LTC Lakin should be re-energized and reinforced immediately by a more experienced military legal team.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Which fits Vattel's definitions for natural citizenship. Those born to citizen parents serving in the Armies of the state are considered 'born in the country' ... which would make McCain a natural born citizen. It gives us the two same circumstances Obama must follow ... born to citizen parents and born in the country. Obama doesn't fit the former and he has no legal proof of the latter.
Where in the Constitution is the responsibility and authority to determine Constitutional eligibility or whether a President elect “qualifies” specifically given to a branch other than the judiciary, that it could be called a “political question”? Impeachment is given to Congress, but that is not the same thing as determining whether a President elect is “qualified” and could thus ever have been allowed to use the presidential powers.
Standing is a complicated issue. It is always a requirement. Usually in a civil lawsuit it is not an issue (the subject of an argument) because unless the plaintiff is directly affected seeking direct relief, he isn't in court.
A military person who is ordered to do an act under the authority of a person who claims to be Commander in Chief would have standing to mount a challenge to that order. However, as Col. Lakin is finding out, the challenge is tricky and requires careful legal work--otherwise the challenger winds up not being able to seek his relief.
The issue is complicated by the "political question" doctrine. When you have an issue where the political system--the counting of votes; the substance of the candidate; the electoral process; provides a method for determining the resolution, most of the time, a complaining party must seek resolution in that system before seeking relief from the courts.
And then, relief in the courts is limited to challenge to the process of resolution of the question.
In Obama's case, the argument has been and will be heard that the political system is responsible for determining whether or not he is qualified to stand for election; or that the Congress is making a political decision on eligibility when it certifies that Obama is the eligible candidate who received the most votes.
That's a good argument. It fails because on the facts, there is no record setting forth his eligibility. Any such certification is "clearly erroneous" because there isn't any inquiry as to his eligibility to support the finding. If such an inquiry were conducted, facts would be found demonstrating that he was not eligibile.
Or if a fake hearing were conducted by the Dems with a determination that he was eligible, that determination would be demonstrated to be "clearly erroneous" because there is a clear factual record accessible to any challenger who otherwise has standing who can easily present a prima facia case that he is not eligible.
But that's an argument that will be heard until the case is decided.
We know that persons who are citizens at birth, even though born outside the country with citizen parent or parents, due to various statues do not fall under the same legal umbrella as those born in the US, and their rights and privileges may even depend on which parent was a US citizen. Why can there not be distinctions between classifications of native born citizens?
But please, don't doubt my sincerity. Refute me if you will, but not that.
Most of the arguments you have made on this topic can be reduced to a direction that support's Obama's position.
For example here, a case mounted exclusively on the argument that he can't be natural born because his father, parents, or secondary birth or other citizenship preclude a finding of "natural born" is most likely to be decided by an appellate court in the US as resolved by the subsequent enactment of the 14th Amendment.
Sure, counsel ought to make those arguments but they are not likely to get much weight in a Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court.
And the result of a decision holding that those arguments do not preclude a "natural born" decision would then be used to preclude state filing officers in 2012 from requiring further evidence from Obama as to his eligibility. In other subsequent cases, such a decision would presumably be res judicata barring a plaintiff from seeking to challenge actions by Obama in his claimed capacity.
So when you run into somebody like you making these arguments, you tend to think that person is probably on the other side.
The argument that you can have different sets of citizenship rights that attach to a 14th Amendment Citizen depending on the citizen's parentage or other factors flies in the face of the logic on which the 14th Amendment was adopted.
I don't know of any basis on which to believe that you can have different classes of 14th Amendment Citizens. Neither do you.
So?
It gives us the two same circumstances Obama must follow ... born to citizen parents and born in the country. Obama doesn't fit the former and he has no legal proof of the latter.
Last time I checked Vattel was not the law of the land in this country. If it was we'd have an official national religion.
Did Congress ever certify that Obama was the ELIGIBLE candidate who received the most votes? When I look at the Constitution I only see that they are supposed to count the votes. The states themselves are responsible for the elections held in their state, and Congress is supposed to count the votes that the states come up with. Congress is expressly given the role of deciding their OWN eligibility issues, but not that of POTUS and VP.
The Constitution never says who is supposed to determine whether the President elect and/or VP elect have “failed to qualify”.
Seems to me that DETERMINING the eligibility of the POTUS and VP is a “power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States”. So the Tenth Amendment would reserve it “to the States respectively, or to the people.” Which would mean that the people would have standing to file a suit to be allowed access to the records which would allow them to do that.
Certainly Alan Keyes had a justiciable, particularized harm at the time he filed his lawsuit.
It sounds to me like Denise Lind is claiming it is a “political question” because only Congress can REMOVE a president. But the question before them is whether or not Lakin disobeyed a lawful order. The elements of Article 92 say that an order is not lawful if it is contrary to the Constitution or laws, or was given by somebody acting beyond their authority.
So the military should not even be able to accuse Lakin of violating Article 92 unless they know that the orders given are not contrary to the Constitution. The military can’t decide that; only the judiciary can decide that. The military should have filed a case against Obama so that the courts would have ruled on the Constitutionality of Obama’s use of the Presidential powers. Then and only then could the military know whether the orders Lakin disobeyed were lawful.
As it is right now, there is no way the military could lawfully convict him, IMHO. And I think the way they’re using arguments that have already been overturned in previous courts-martial is setting up Lakin to be convicted and the conviction to be overturned in civilian court. They are violating his due process rights, using an “even if” argument (de facto officer doctrine) in order to keep him from being able to defend himself against the actual charge against him, which is disobeying a LAWFUL order.
If it is assumed that Congress certifies eligibility when they count the votes, then what would have to be done to sue the living crap out of Congress? Because they CERTIFIABLY failed to even check Obama’s eligibility, as evidenced by the HDOH’s admission that Obama’s BC is amended and thus not legally valid. Congress COULD NOT legally certify Obama’s eligibility without the BC being presented to a judicial or administrative person or body as evidence and being determined as probative.
In which case Lakin has to prove that Colonel Roberts, Colonel McHugh or Lieutenant Colonel Judd were acting beyond their authority when they ordered Lakin to report to his COs office or for duty with the 101st. And I believe he should have access to any evidence he needs to do so. But Obama's eligibility is not relevant to that.
So the military should not even be able to accuse Lakin of violating Article 92 unless they know that the orders given are not contrary to the Constitution.
Ordering a change of station or an order to report to a given office at a given time potentially violate the Constitution how?
As it is right now, there is no way the military could lawfully convict him, IMHO.
Watch them.
You and I both heard the military guys on this board say that the deployments and movements are coordinated at higher levels, based on the CONPLAN or OPLAN - which comes directly from the decisions of the CINC and SecDef (who is appointed by the CINC). The specific deployments and movements to implement those directives from the CINC are decided by the higher commanders and plugged into the computer system, from which the lower commanders print out the results and get them to the individuals who will deploy.
So the whole authorization is from the CINC and SecDef.
I had asked what would happen if Lakin’s brigade commanders had sent him to Iran to fight the mullahs. The response I got was that it would be impossible. Such a movement would never get entered into the coordinated plan, and the brigade commanders can’t send anybody anywhere without that movement coming from the coordinated system - which is coordinated at levels much higher than the brigade commander.
IOW, the brigade commanders have neither the authority nor the ability to actually MAKE THE DECISIONS regarding troop movement; they just pass on what is handed down to them to give to the individuals deploying or moving. The orders themselves are generated from the higher commands, and specifically to implement the directives developed by the CINC and SecDef - both of which have to meet Constitutional requirements in order to either hold the office or exercise the powers of the office. If the Constitution doesn’t allow those people to exercise the powers then the people implementing the directives do so WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORIZATION.
I probably will watch them unlawfully convict Lakin.
And that grieves me.
If only you and the military guys in question actually read Lakin's charge sheet.
My understanding (and as always, I invite people to correct me if I’m misunderstanding) is that the brigade commanders are basically like a postman who delivers a letter from the IRS. If the letter he delivers is from somebody only PRETENDING to be the IRS, his being a genuine postal worker still can’t make that fraudulent letter lawful. Because he is only the messenger, his standing has no bearing on the lawfulness of what is in the letter that he delivered.
The order is the DECISION, and that was made by the CINC - implemented by the commanders immediately below him, and delivered to the individuals via the brigade commanders.
He deserves due process. And he’s not getting it.
. . . . # 122 for David's comment.
(SP alert, too.)
I’m sure we all have.
It’s a printout of the CINC and SecDef’s orders, plugged into a software program to execute the decisions.
Lakin’s course of conduct, which commenced with consultating with higher military authorities regarding Obama's eligibility, may provide the only answer to the following question:How do we expect a military officer to swear to defend the Constitution if he or she is prohibited from involvement in political matters?
Out them! Make them respond.
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.