Posted on 07/14/2009 3:29:17 PM PDT by MacSuibhne
Obama - Soldier questioning eligibility - Fox News
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
The essential attributes of a lawful order include: (1) issuance by competent authority -- a person authorized by applicable law to give such an order; (2)communication of words that express a specific mandate to do or not do a specific act; and (3)relationship of the mandate to a military duty. [T]he accused may challenge an order on the grounds that it would require the recipient to perform an illegal act or that it conflicts with that person‘s statutory or constitutional rights.“ United States v. Deisher, 61 M.J. 313, 317(2005)"
it was posted on another thread that Cook’s orders had been revoked. Stay tuned for confirmation
AFAIK, there were no similar questions regarding Bush. It’s a well known fact that ZER0 has not proven his eligibility. Active duty officers take “an Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” This soldier is basing his case upon the “enemies .. domestic” in the lawsuit.
As I said earlier .. it would be nice if instead, a well-heeled CIVIL organization or two would bombard the Courts with eligibility cases.
He took an oath to up hold the Constitution of the United State not an oath to Obama.
Email your thanks to Brett at Special@foxnews.com
He’ll cover it when ever there is a new activity....He got the question put up on FOX NATION a few weeks back.
All of the relevant Constitutional officers of the Republic, including President of the Senate Richard Cheney of Wyoming, have affirmed Obama's eligibility and have certified his election in a proper and constitutional manner.
Until they are shown to be wrong, he is the perfectly legal President and C-in-C, and this soldier is (and should be) in deep doo-doo.
I'm not sure where I come down on this, but I think cases like this point to one of the reasons why some of the most effective military forces in U.S. history were those that didn't answer to a centralized government or national command structure. I'd cite the Green Mountain Boys, Daniel Morgan's Virginia Riflemen, and later the Texas Rangers as good examples of this.
The Kossacks are saying that the major (plaintiff) is a Freeper!
His orders were given by his immediate superiors.
Have you confirmed that ? Can’t find anything about it.
He’s willing to go to court to find out who just is in deep doo doo. I say it’s Obama.
I didn’t realise that was a crime....
Then he can leave the Army in protest. At present, however, it would appear based on the UCMJ definition that he is engaged in mutiny.
Only in a Nazi Germany would one expect otherwise.
What?!? Are you really saying that soldiers (except Nazis) can pick and choose which orders they feel like following?
Semper Fi
Ah, irony....
However, the order(s) to deploy to Afghanistan received by his superiors come from the Pentagon that is run by the Secretary of Defense who gets his orders from Obama. Is Obama legally able to give lawful orders? Obama may not be.
His orders were given by his immediate superiors.
So you are saying that his immediate superiors can order him to fly halfway around and attack an enemy?
But it's not.
OK, and their orders, etc.? It is CIC Obama that is expanding our force in Afghanistan. If he’s illegit, aren’t his orders also illegit?
The new Obama talking points are emerging.
Are you suggesting that our presence in Afghanistan and the prosecution of the war therein is Unlawful?
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.