Axe Begins to Fall on Army Officer Challenging Obama’s Eligibility to Serve as President

Bob McCarty Writes ^ | 4-13-10 | Bob McCarty

[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.

[El Gato]

The Courts-Martial will only address his failure to follow a lawful order, not whether the order is unlawful

Not true, that the order was not lawful is an explicitly allowed Affirmative Defense to the charge of disobeying an order. He must be allowed to present it. However the judge could possibly rule that the order itself is all that can be considered, not the ultimate order giver's lawful authority to give it. We shall see, and sooner rather than later.

[El Gato]

Hey I respect that officer but this is wartime-imagine if those who hated FDR had refused to deploy.

It's got nothing to do with hating BHO, or even with disagreeing with him. It's got to do with his eligibility.

Roosevelt came from an old Dutch family in New York, They'd been in the US for many generations. Roosevelt was anglisized from 'Van Rosevelt,' or 'Van Rosenvelt'. His mother's family, the Delanos, had been in the US since 1621. They were descendants of the first Huguenot to land in the New World, whose family name was Anglicized to Delano, from de la Noye. There was no question that he was a natural born citizen. He certainly was old enough, and had enough "public service" history, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for example, that it was known he satisfied the residency requirement as well.

[El Gato]

He keeps saying how apolitical the military is

They are. But this is not a political question. Not in the sense of partisan politics, which is what they mean when they say they are apolitical. But otherwise:

"War is the extension of politics by other means",
Karl von Clausewitz.

[El Gato]

And what happened to the guy that refused to deploy because he thought Bush started an illegal war?

He couldn't prove his case. Not surprising, since Bush was operating under a Congressional authorization for use of force in Iraq. And an earlier one in Afghanistan, which extended to wherever the terrorists might hide.

[El Gato]

What happens to the brave colonel Lakin if--- in the near future---Obama is forced to allow Hawaii officials to release his long form birth certificate to the public and the media, and we find out that the long form birth certificate does NOT have a doctor signature or a hospital name on it?

Obama would not be so forced, he'd have nothing to do with it, the court, even a Military Court, can order up the documents, under Hawaii law, as a Court of Competent Jurisdiction. Obama could file to prevent the release, but it's hard to imagine what the grounds would be, or more importantly what grounds a court would accept, but not hard at all to imagine how damning such an action would be.

[El Gato]

Once a president’s electoral votes are certified and he is sworn in, he IS the president, no matter what.

So your position is that an ineligible person can actually be President. No matter how, by the use of fraud, or worse, he managed to get into office despite being ineligible? All he needs is for his party to control the House and he can stay.

[El Gato]

Even the de facto officer doctrine, which is not a military doctrine at all, does not require one to continue obeying the orders of one found ineligible. What is does is say that the acts of someone wrongfully appointed, to an otherwise legitimate office, in general will stand. It's application is limited and probably does not extend to the case where fraud on the part of the "de facto officer" was involved.

I wouldn't worry about it in this case. Even if it applied to the fraudulent acquisition of an office, it would a most apply to the acts, that is the executive orders, bills signed into law, etc. of the in inedible person.

[El Gato]

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.

It's not the 138 process, it's the Court Martial (Which just means military court) that could force the state to produce the documents. A military court is as much a court of competent jurisdiction as a civilian court, and Hawaii law provides that a court of competent jurisdiction can get or authorize someone else to get, the birth records.

[Always Independent]

Don’t get me wrong, I support the officer in refusing to deploy under order from the current faker in chief.

[john mirse]

What happens to the brave colonel Lakin if--- in the near future---Obama is forced to allow Hawaii officials to release his long form birth certificate to the public and the media, and we find out that the long form birth certificate does NOT have a doctor signature or a hospital name on it?

*******

Obama would not be so forced, he'd have nothing to do with it, the court, even a Military Court, can order up the documents, under Hawaii law, as a Court of Competent Jurisdiction. Obama could file to prevent the release, but it's hard to imagine what the grounds would be, or more importantly what grounds a court would accept, but not hard at all to imagine how damning such an action would be.

******

This is mirse, the original poster. I'm sorry, but I guess I didn't make myself clear. Let me see if I can make my second message clearer on what I meant to say.

1. I did not mean to say that Obama might be forced to release his Hawaii long form birth certificate during the doctor's military trial.

2. Rather, I meant to say the following: What would happen to the doctor if Obama was forced by growing public pressure to release his long form birth certificate several years AFTER the doctor's court-martial, such as during the 2012 presidential campaign, and we find out that Obama's long form birth certificate does NOT have a doctor's signature and/or a hospital name on it?

3. That is, if Obama's Hawaii long form birth certificate proves that Obama was not eligible to run for President of the United States after all, will the court-martialed and imprisoned doctor receive a public apology from government officials and immediate release from prison? I hope so.

I hope I expressed myself much better in this second message than I did in my first message.

[PA-RIVER]

If he is geting court marshalled, he gets a Jury.

What if he presents Michelle Obamas video “His home Country is Kenya”, and the Jury lets him off? What if he presents the Kenyan BC with the footprint?

What if the jury lets him off ?

This might start an earthquake.

[butterdezillion]

I wonder if the de facto officer doctrine would give cover for those who DID obey Obama as ineligible CIC.

But I would certainly hope it would not make someone punishable for REVEALING that Obama was nothing more than a de facto officer since he is a usurper.

[butterdezillion]

Sorry I’m late responding. I didn’t receive a ping for this.

Where does the Constitution say that having electoral votes certified can make an ineligible person the president? It seems to me that the 20th Amendment says that if a president-elect (that would be somebody who has been certified as having the electoral college votes) FAILS TO QUALIFY they are not to become president.

The question remains whether Obama has failed to qualify. Nothing anybody else does changes that fact. The qualifications to be president are age, residency, and being a natural born US citizen. To this point Obama has offered nobody any legal proof of having met ANY of those requirements. It is obvious that he has failed to PROVE he’s qualified. So regardless of what anybody else has done, the 20th Amendment would require a FINDING OF FACT - the fact of whether Obama has qualified or failed to qualify. Nobody has ever done that finding of fact.

And Nancy Pelosi perjured herself by claiming that she KNEW he was Constitutionally eligible.

But you seem to be saying that if Vladimir Putin could get somebody like Ruth Ginsburg to swear him in there would be no stinkin’ thing that anybody in this entire nation could do except bend over and take whatever Putin wanted to give us. And if any military officer refused they would be bad, corrupt, totally terrible, illegal, unpatriotic, stupid, and rightfully-court-martialed people.

Did I hear you right?

[butterdezillion]

Oops. Correction. I did receive a ping for that; must have overlooked it.

[jamese777]

Sorry I’m late responding. I didn’t receive a ping for this.

Where does the Constitution say that having electoral votes certified can make an ineligible person the president? It seems to me that the 20th Amendment says that if a president-elect (that would be somebody who has been certified as having the electoral college votes) FAILS TO QUALIFY they are not to become president.

The question remains whether Obama has failed to qualify. Nothing anybody else does changes that fact. The qualifications to be president are age, residency, and being a natural born US citizen. To this point Obama has offered nobody any legal proof of having met ANY of those requirements. It is obvious that he has failed to PROVE he’s qualified. So regardless of what anybody else has done, the 20th Amendment would require a FINDING OF FACT - the fact of whether Obama has qualified or failed to qualify. Nobody has ever done that finding of fact.

And Nancy Pelosi perjured herself by claiming that she KNEW he was Constitutionally eligible.

But you seem to be saying that if Vladimir Putin could get somebody like Ruth Ginsburg to swear him in there would be no stinkin’ thing that anybody in this entire nation could do except bend over and take whatever Putin wanted to give us. And if any military officer refused they would be bad, corrupt, totally terrible, illegal, unpatriotic, stupid, and rightfully-court-martialed people.

Did I hear you right?

---

Well there are a few steps for Mr. Putin before raising his hand on the Communist Manifesto and having Ruth Bader Ginsberg swear him in: he would have to find a way to appear on the ballot of the vast majority of the states despite not being an American citizen; he would need to get the votes of probably 60 million Americans, minimum; he would have to hope that he had no faithless electors who refused to vote for him and he would have to have zero members of Congress object to the certification of his electoral votes, in writing. If Mr. Putin managed to overcome all those steps, yes, he could be president and only impeachment, trial and conviction could remove him.
The Constitution gives the judiciary branch no power to remove a sitting president. It is the responsibility of Congress to determine ineligibility and then remove that person.

Also you left an important phrase out of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment: “the president-elect shall have died...”

It is the responsibility of the chief election official in each of the 50 states (usually the Secretary of State) to verify any candidate’s credentials to run. If Nancy Pelosi perjured herself, let some prosecutor in the nation indict her for perjury. Then we’d have something serious to talk about here. Just saying that there was perjury or forgery doesn’t cut it without an indictment. Look at how fast Rod Blagojevich was removed as Governor of Illinois by his own Democrat Party once US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald indicted him.

[jamese777]

So your position is that an ineligible person can actually be President. No matter how, by the use of fraud, or worse, he managed to get into office despite being ineligible? All he needs is for his party to control the House and he can stay.

---

Yes, that is my position.
Impeachment, trial and conviction is the way to remove an ineligible person from being president. Fraud is a high crime. It took less than six weeks to remove the Governor of Illinois BY HIS OWN PARTY once he was indicted.

[Manly Warrior]

Like I said, the CM will only focus on LTC Lakins refusal, not on the lawfulness of any orders he disobeys.

The orders will have been issued by legit commanders, based on congressional directions (they voted to attack both Iraq and Afg.) and therefore legitimate. Any issue of the president being a defacto one will not be addressed.

I agree that an unlawful order is defense against disobeying it. That will not be discussed. (my position)

Best;

[philman_36]

Well it looks to me like things have progressed to the point where it’s going to be a given that information will come out that proves he isn’t eligible to be POTUS and the emphasis has been shifted to ensuring that anything he has signed into law stays law...thus the de facto officer doctrine arguments.

[El Gato]

thus the de facto officer doctrine arguments.

I doubt it applies in a case where deliberate fraud is involved in the "de facto" officer's acquisition of the office.

That "Consitutional scholar" line is going to come back to bite them in the butt.

[El Gato]

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.

You need to examine your timelines. No one deployed to Iraq before that occured several times concening the 200 election. There was no issue in the 2004 election.