Replies

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.

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.

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.