Posted on 03/30/2010 4:15:55 PM PDT by BobMcCartyWrites
The flight surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey's pilots and air crew wants President Obama to prove his eligibility now.
The Constitution requires the President to be a natural-born citizen, over 35, and for 14 years a resident of the country. It is silent on how those qualifications must be proven and who to. Nor is there any law laying out how the President needs to prove he's constitutionally eligible. The requirement to be eligible is there. But this right you claim requires him to prove it to you doesn't exist.
The military is not given governing powers in the Constitution. Members of the military enlist, they are not elected, they are of us but do not represent us. The military is subordinate to civilian leadership. That is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
To suggest a military coup is the answer to our problems is to promote the shredding our Constitution, not uphold it. It removes power from the people through their elected representatives and places it in the hands of the military.
Once you let that genie out of the bottle, how are you going to put it back?
What is illegal or highly suspicious about an order to deploy overseas? It's not like they're asking him to nuke a village or something.
So only McCain during the election has standing according to you? No American has the right to have the law as set out in the Constitution enforced?
Not only to me but to the judiciary as well. There have been several cases which established that the losing candidate has standing to sue if his opponent is found to be ineligible. Recent decisions have tightened this up somewhat to include only legitimate candidates with a reasonable expectation of winning - fringe candidates aren't included.
No American has the right to have the law as set out in the Constitution enforced?
We're talking about a civil suit. The requirement to establish standing has existed for centuries.
So only McCain during the election has standing according to you?
“Not only to me but to the judiciary as well.”
___________________________________________________________
I don’t believe you. Simple as that. I do not believe a court would make that flat statement. Please find the language you are referring to in a case.
By the way, I’m not trying to insult you by saying I don’t believe you. I’m asking for support for your statement. My bet is the candidates have standing but that no court has said that only a candidate has standing.
Hollander v McCain, 2008 Link
"Hollander, however, argues that the harm to him from McCain's candidacy transcends simply the right to be governed by a constitutionally qualified President; Hollander claims it also impacts his right to vote, both in the New Hampshire Republican Primary and the general election. This is a difficult theory to understand, but it appears to rest on the premise that McCain's mere status as a presidential candidate or party nominee somehow interferes with the electoral franchise of voters like Hollander who consider McCain ineligible for the office. Presumably, those voters are empowered to address that concern on their own by voting for a different presidential candidate, whose eligibility is unimpeachable. The presence of some allegedly ineligible candidate on the ballot would not seem to impair that right in the least, no matter how the candidat performs in the election.
To be sure, courts have held that a candidate or his political party have standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or the party's own chanced of prevailing in the election. See, e.g., Tex. Dem Party v. Benkiser, 459 F. 3d 582, 586-87 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2006); Schulte v. Williams, 44 F. 3d 48, 53 (2nd Cir. 1994); Fulani v. Hogett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 1990). But that notion of "competitive standing" has never been extended to voters challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate."
But that language excludes suits by one class of citizen, the voter with no other basis for their claim. That isn’t a statement that only the candidate can sue (far from it — much more limited). Courts just don’t make those type of sweeping statements if they don’t have to.
That case expands it a bit too from the candidate. The Court says that political parties can bring suit as well. : )
So let’s have the Republican party sue. Or Palin.
you are not correct in the intent.
The intent was always to deploy. SOCCENT revoked the orders. Typically, a reservist who volunteers for deployment can request for the orders to be revoked/rescinded up to the day before deployment. There was never a requested for the Orders be revoked. What was done was to seek clarification as to the legitimacy of the Chain of command and hence the orders and have a Temporary restraining order granted until such time as legitamacy of the Chain of command was established.
Terry Lakin is a good man, and a superb officer. He is a friend.
Please continue....
You are cracking me up.
IMO, I do not believe it will escalate to the proportions you suggest.
“The flight surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey’s pilots and air crew wants President Obama to prove his eligibility now.”
It’s kind of sad that the good doctor believes that Obama cares enough about him to keep him from the stockade.
“The rest are just there for a paycheck.”
Or they just don’t buy into the CT.
Imagine if such an officer had refused to follow George Bush’s orders:
IT WOULD BE FRONT AND CENTER OF THE MSM !!!!!!!!!!!!
Google Lieutenant Watada
I have no doubt that he possesses those qualities you ascribed to him. Unfortunately, those qualities will not save him from the consequences of his, IMO, impetuous action.
He full well expects those consequences. Hence his actions.
Forcing function.
Apparently, you must know his end game and what he calculates his chances are of attaining his goal. At the moment, I only see professional suicide which is neither sound tactics nor strategy.
If he is court-marshalled, he’s entitled to defend himself. And in defending himself, he’s entitled to discovery. And what do you think will be the first item on that list?
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.