Posted on 05/20/2010 11:35:49 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
How exactly do they defend the Constitution by standing down to a fraud??
It is the duty of US Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and they have already refused to hear any of six Obama eligibility lawsuits that have reached them for Justices’ Writ of Certiorari conferences.
And several state courts have rejected challenges to the validity of Obama’s Electoral votes.
I asked about your credentials.
I accept your answer — you have none.
“Lakin’s motivation for not deploying become irrelevant and inadmissible at trial. It doesn’t matter why he missed movement, just that he did.”
Seems to me that “attenuating or mitigating” circumstances are always allowed in a defense. The panel of “line” officers may have a different view of things than a direct commissined JAG who only sees the letter of the law and not intent. LTC Latkin’s intent is relevant. I cannot imagine a panel of officers LTC or higher NOT wanting to hear about intent; even if they disagree with LTC Latkin. He would do best to maintain an innocent plea, I believe the issue will come up during the trial
Now that being said, the issue of President Obama’s status will not be brought up in the Article 32 hearing. As you have said, this simply exists to determine if the charges have any merit. From a strictly legal view, they do.
However, in a trial, motive does play. If this is suppressed, it wouldn’t be an impartial hearing. The UCMJ was not intended to be used as a club. The discipline of the military depends on the preception that the UCMJ is impartial and open to motives. The recent exoneration of the Navy Seals raised morale. IF more military personnel were aware of ALL the circumstances behind LTC Latkin’s order refusal....they would (except for die hard partisans or some minorities) want him to be allowed a full hearing with all evidence requested provided. Anything less is detrimental to good order and discipline.
IF the POTUS should stop stonewalling and produce the documents requested and there is nothing fuzzy in them, then LTC Latkin’s conviction would be seen as OK.
Sorry, but this is circular argument. Being elected and certifying results does not demonstrate that Obama was proved to be Constitutionally eligible for the office. You need to provide actual proof that these electors looked at some form of documentary evidence and ascertained it was bona fide.
The military has no role to play with respect to presidential eligibility.
The military has a role in defending the Constitution, which in this case, is threatened by undocumented eligibility. There's no reason the military can't take an active role in ensuring a legitimate chain of command.
This alleged fraud is a civilian crime. The military doesn't investigate, prosecute civilian crimes, nor does it enforce civilian law on civilians.
The president is a tangible link in the chain of command. This isn't solely a civilian matter.
It’s amazing what some people think passes for argument.
How so?? Be specific.
It is the duty of US Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and they have already refused to hear any of six Obama eligibility lawsuits that have reached them for Justices’ Writ of Certiorari conferences. And several state courts have rejected challenges to the validity of Obama’s Electoral votes.
Well, somebody else has mastered the art of a circular argument. Sor far, these cases have been rejected for procedural reasons, not because of Constitutional interpretations.
Sorry, but it wouldn't hold up. There's an actual paper trail to prove Bush was elected. There is no paper trail showing Obama to be Constitutionally eligible.
There are some mitigating circumstances that are addressed in the RCM speciic to missing movement. However, "The President is not really the president" isn't one of them.
"LTC Latkin’s intent is relevant"
No, it isn't. The military judge has existing case law to guide him here, See: US v Watada citing United States v. Huet-Vaughn. 43 M.J. 105, 114-115 (1995), which held in part...
"The accused’s motive not to deploy and his belief about the lawfulness of the Iraq war are not elements of the offense. Motive is, therefore, irrelevant on the merits"
"However, in a trial, motive does play. If this is suppressed, it wouldn’t be an impartial hearing."
See above. CAAF, in a number of cases has always disagreed.
Again, this is VERY elementary for lawyers familiar with military law. Lakin should have consulted competent military counsel before engaging in this behavior. In fact, he was formally advised by his command to seek military counsel prior to missing movement.
That's true. In the interest of fairness to his civilian attorney, we really don't know what specific advice was given. But, based on media interview it at least appears that he was advised to pursue this course of action.
140...Would you consider yourself to be a trained lawyer?
No. Obama's records are sealed, just like the records of the common folk, by law that was enacted long, long before anyone ever heard of Obama.
...has been the mantra of every South American banana republic the last 100 years. This is PRECISELY why we see so many military coups in that continent. The military is always poking around in "constitutional matters". That's not the way it works in this country. The institutional memory and teaching of the US Armed Forces is clear - civilian command is paramount, always.
Obama is the President. Any constitutional infirmity in either his election or installation, is not the concern of the military.
As someone else pointed out, using your logic, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs could have disobeyed Bush's first order in 2001, and argued that he wasn't elected, but selected and therefor unconstitutional. Do you see the slippery sloap and why this is avoided in by military command?
It would be terribly unfair in adding to the intellectual beating being administered to you by ODH and others. lol
I ignore idiotic questions. Get used to it.
Every birther legal action I’ve seen has been pure amateur hour. With Orly Taitz and Phil Berg, the only casualty has been their already dubious credibility. It’s a shame that the amateurs in this case are going to end LTC Lakin’s military career and probably ruin his medical career.
I have a hard time generating much sympathy for Lakin, though. If this was some E-3 patsy, I’d feel sorry for him. An O-5 should know better than this.
What has Obama done to you?
Aside...Shouldn't you notify the people that you prosecuted or defended that they had bad representation or were wrongly prosecuted?
where does their direct superior camanding officer get them?
Besides, the chain of command is not that simple. One sometimes gets orders from several levels above ones direct CO. Transfer and movement orders are often like that. Especially orders for individuals as opposed to units.
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.