Posted on 04/13/2010 10:00:19 AM PDT by BobMcCartyWrites
The axe appears to be falling on an Army officer who is refusing to deploy to Afghanistan until Barack Obama proves he is eligible to serve as president.
> “Regardless of the reason behind his actions, refusing an order has it’s punishments.” <
Do you think WE should find LtCol Lakin “Guilty of the Charges and Specifications” BEFORE a panel of his peers (other Commissioned Officers) has an opportunity to hear the evidence against him?
Shall WE just let the “axe fall” and “punish” him EVEN BEFORE the Article 32 Investigation (military equivalent of a grand jury) determines and present evidence that an offense has actually occurred?
Just asking?
Wow, thanks for mentioning Bily Mitchell. What a man he was. I just got done reading Doolittle’s biography, and Mitchell was never appreciated. He is the kind of zealot that I like.
And his name was Terrence Lakin
I read up on the Article 138 process. I fail to see how this can force the State of HI to disclose the long form birth record.
I think that he received a less than honorable discharge.
So if Vladimir Putin became the CIC everything he did would be considered a “valid order”?
If so, then how the heck is any officer actually supposed to KEEP the oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and internal? Seems like the only mechanism for an officer to do that is to fall on the sword, because actually DOING what he/she swears would be in violation of the “de facto officer” doctrine.
I’m asking a serious question: How do the “de facto officer doctrine” and any other military provisions actually provide for an officer to keep his/her oath when someone above him/her in the chain of command is a (supposedly) internal enemy to the Constitution?
What provision is made for that? How could he/she carry out their oath WITHOUT violating a “de facto” order?
I sure hope you’re right. These days it’s anybody’s guess whether what’s SUPPOSED to be will ever actually happen. We’re in a time of utter lawlessness.
BCD = Bad Conduct Discharge = less than honorable discharge
My purpose for expanding on the Article 138 is to illustrate that he is working within the UCMJ, and not trying to work outside the chain of command. Also, it appears that he is being thoughtful, and thurough about the methodology. This is not an ignorant man.
Jamesee is a clown.
So if Vladimir Putin became the CIC everything he did would be considered a “valid order”?
If so, then how the heck is any officer actually supposed to KEEP the oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and internal? Seems like the only mechanism for an officer to do that is to fall on the sword, because actually DOING what he/she swears would be in violation of the “de facto officer” doctrine.
I’m asking a serious question: How do the “de facto officer doctrine” and any other military provisions actually provide for an officer to keep his/her oath when someone above him/her in the chain of command is a (supposedly) internal enemy to the Constitution?
What provision is made for that? How could he/she carry out their oath WITHOUT violating a “de facto” order?
There is nowhere in the US Constitution that the Judicial Branch is given the power to remove a sitting president.
If Vladimir Putin got a majority of the electoral college votes, he still could be stopped at the Joint Session of Congress by any two Congressman submitting written objections to the certification of his Electoral Votes by the President of the Senate (the outgoing Vice President).
He could also be stopped by nobody being willing to swear him in.
“Imagine what we would say if liberal soldiers had refused to deploy to Iraq until Bush had his election verified in a court of law.”
A VERY flawed analogy. First of all, we weren’t at war when the first G.W. Bush election occured. PLUS, and MORE importantly, was that the SCOTUS intervened and MADE the count legal...by ending recounts.
The SCOTUS ACTED!!!! Something they have FAILED to do in this situation. Just the sound of criketts. They need to be FORCED to make a ruling...whether I or others agree or disagree...they need to make a ruling on Barrack Obama’s NBC status. Can he be a NBC with a non-citizen father? et. al.
This IS NOT too much to ask. THAT is the crux of the issue. IS BHO constitutionally qualified to be POTUS? Silence doesn’t make it so.
Military officers swear allegiance to the Constitution; not the President.
The court ended the counting. They didn’t rule on whether Bush had won or lost.
My point wasn’t that specific incidence, it was that anybody can claim that the President doesn’t meet the qualifications, and we can’t have troops who get to sit on the sidelines until they get a court hearing to rule on their claims.
The presumption is that Obama is president, and until someone proves otherwise, people will have to obey lawful orders of their superiors. 50 states certified Obama to be on the ballot. The electors voted for Obama, certifying he was the winner. The congress ratified the results. The judicial representative swore him in.
We can argue over whether he is qualified, but the notion that everybody should act like he ISN”T president until courts rule on the challenges is backwards.
“But can they punish somebody for refusing a lawful order without first proving that it’s lawful - or allowing the person the means to prove that it’s NOT a lawful order?”
Very good question.
A position only held by liberal wannabe oligarchs, many of whom are on this board. A position which which they will refuse to attempt to hold up in debate.
The constitution restricts the power to initiate war to the Senate. It also strictly requires that body to ratify any document formally ending a war.
In 1990, a foreign power declared war on the US and we as a nation became embroiled in Iraq. The constitution does not address whether or not we are at war when another power declares war on us, as the founding fathers never imagined idiots like the 1990 congress, or the braindead idiots (some of whom are here at Free Republic) would ever pretend that we are not legitimately at war.
Bottom line, we have been at war since 1990, as the Senate has never ratified a treaty ending the war Iraq declared on the USA at that time.
I am willing to debate any brain dead idiot that wishes to give it a shot.
Talk about undue command influence and illegal orders!
The judge and prosecutors, maybe even the convening authority, would likely blow the whistle on him faster than he could believe.
Except in a civilian trial, the jury is passive. A Court Martial, that is the panel of officers (and optionally enlisted for an enlisted defendant) is an active part of the trial. They get to ask questions all along the way, of each witness, if they choose.
That's the enlisted oath. The officer's oath is:
I,_____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
You'll notice there is nothing in there about obeying orders, except as implied by faithfully discharging the duties of the office. The oath has been the same since 1868, although the enlisted oath was last changed in 1962, to add the "support and defend" language and to better align it with the officer's oath.
The officer's oath is the same as that taken by the Vice President and other federal officials.
He has the right to appeal , similar to that in the civilian courts. The rules require that he be given the opportunity to present his defense, so that in and of itself would be grounds for appeal. If he is dismissed, the first appeal is automatic, to an appeals court within the Army judicial system. Lose that and he can appeal to the US Court of Military Appeals, which is the "court of appeals" for cases arising in the military, the same as the "Circuit Courts of Appeal", and from there to the Supreme Court.
Fortunately the military system often moves somewhat faster than the federal civilian one.
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.