Hearing Will Challenge Obama's Eligibility

The New American ^ | May 20, 2010 | Raven Clabough

[2ndDivisionVet]

On May 12, the American Patriot Foundation announced that there will be an Article 32 military hearing that may reveal whether President Barack Obama is a native-born citizen of the United States. The hearing is set for June 11, after Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin refused to deploy to Afghanistan “because the president refuses — even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary — to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office.”

The American Patriot foundation operates the Safeguard Our Constitution website, which generated a great deal of support for the movement for Obama to provide documentation proving his eligibility to serve as President. Those involved in the movement have been dubbed “birthers”, a term that has generally been met with contempt by the mainstream media and Obama supporters.

However, Lakin’s staunch insistence that Obama is responsible for proving his eligibility has gained some notoriety, even prompting CNN to provide media attention to the movement on Anderson Cooper’s program. On the show, both Lakin and his attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, presented a series of facts to legitimatize their concerns.

The “certification of live birth” found on the Internet, which purports to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, has been dismissed as valid proof, as it is a “short-form” document, as opposed to the “long-form” document that lists the hospital and attending physician. “Short-form” documents are easily obtainable. In addition to Obama’s missing birth certificate, other documentation that has been concealed includes kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school records; college records; Harvard Law Review articles; passport; medical records; Illinois State Bar Association records; baptism records; and adoption records.

The constitutional language in question is tricky, as it states that the president of the United States must be a “natural born citizen,” though the term has been undefined. Some argue the term means that the president must be born in the United States to two parents that were also born in the United States. If that proves to be the case, Obama would be disqualified, since he has openly admitted that his father never was a U. S. citizen. However, much of the legal challenge of Obama’s eligibility rests upon the presumption that Obama was not even born in Hawaii, as he claims.

As a result of Lakin’s oppositional failure to report to duty, charges have been filed against him. According to Safeguard Our Constitution, the charges against Lakin are serious and can result in “years of hard labor in a penitentiary,” but Lakin refuses to rescind his demands, as he asserts that serving in a military operation under an ineligible president is illegal. It is Lakin’s hope that the charges against him will lead to the discovery of information to prove or disprove Obama’s legitimacy, which is his ultimate objective.

In the past, however, this has not proven to be the case. Attorney John Hemenway was threatened with sanctions by a federal judge when he attempted to challenge Obama’s presidency. Hemenway welcomed the threat, however, as he believed it would lead to a “discovery hearing,” which would necessitate the search for documentation proving Obama’s eligibility. At that point, the court rescinded its sanction threats.

Any deployment orders filed under Obama that were met by questions of his eligibility have been rescinded. World Net Daily columnist Vox Day writes that this behavior suggests “that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander-in-chief.”

According to World Net Daily, “Obama’s actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution’s requirement that the U.S. president to be a ‘natural born citizen’ has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.”

Lakin joins the ranks of Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook, both who have also questioned Obama’s legitimacy, but Lakin remains the first-active duty officer to raise issue.

Additionally, recent ABC polls reveal that tens of millions of Americans question Obama’s eligibility, including many who are in favor of Obama.

In addition to the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate, World Net Daily’s Jerome Corsi reports that “two independent investigations by two different investigators in two different states (using two different data sources) discovered that the Social Security number used by Barack Obama mysteriously coincides with Social Security numbers verified to have been issued by the state of Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a full two years after Obama’s first, publicly-documented record of employment at a Hawaii Baskin-Robbins back in 1975.” If this is true, not only is President Obama guilty of illegally accepting the presidency, but of identity theft as well.

Joseph Farah, founder of the World Net Daily, has launched a full-fledged campaign questioning Obama’s presidential legitimacy. A petition has been circulated, generating 500,000 signatures from those demanding proof of Obama’s eligibility, while yard signs, bumper stickers, and billboards are popping up asking “Where’s the birth certificate?”

[OldDeckHand]

"Except when it doesn't."

I'm not even sure what that means.

Lower courts cannot ignore or overturn binding precedent (see: stare decisis). That's why it's called binding precedent. It is law, as all binding precedent is law. In this case, the appellate court established a precedent which MUST be followed by all subordinate lower courts, or they'll be subject to reversal, just as they'd be subject to reversal if they ignored statutory law.

The Supreme Court can overturn precedent established by any lower court decision (as that precedent wouldn't be binding on superior courts), and/or any precedent that they've (the Supreme Court) previously established, although that is done so rarely, most lawyers can recite from memory the major instances of such reversal.

"Precedent is overturned all the time."

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that characterization, but even if I did, that doesn't limit or foreclose binding precedent as law, now does it. Statutory laws "are changed all the time", but does that somehow make them less legal? Of course not.

But, I applaud you and your google law degree for trying.

[BIGLOOK]

Probably.....but with many states passing laws to prevent the problem of lack of vetting of a candidate, he just might find a sympathetic ear somewhere. Dr. Lakin doesn't have to be the sole plaintiff in a court case to shake things up.

[OldDeckHand]

"I highly doubt you’ve tried any cases like this one OldD—kH—d."

Sure, I've never seen ANY Article 87 or 92 cases. In fact, this is the first case in the history of the military to use those Articles.

"Anything less than revealing BC or lack thereof is simply not justice by the letter of the law. "

Well, I don't know the law that you're familiar with, but the law that I'm familiar with says Obama's birth certificate is wholly irrelevant to Lakin's court-martial.

We will see how the trial unfolds. If you've wagered any cash on the outcome of this trial, I'd suggest not spending your anticipated winnings, until such time that you've actually collected. Just saying.

[El Sordo]

You are putting your all into discrediting conservatism.

And you joined only a a few month ago...

You’re pretty clearly a troll, Obot.

Probably a paid agent provocateur, I bet.

[OldDeckHand]

"GWB wasn't born to a foreign national"

How do you know? Have you conducted a DNA analyis to determine GWB's parentage? Have you seen GWB's birth certificate? I suppose anyone could be his mother, absent conclusive proof.

"While Bush didn't provide a certified copy of his birth certificate"

Thanks, you can stop right there.

[edge919]

You are putting your all into discrediting conservatism.

Nonsense.

Probably a paid agent provocateur, I bet.

On this bet you'd lose. Better to focus on an actual argument and not baseless ad hominem attacks.

[edge919]

Very sad, deck hand. The only way you put forth an argument is to select bits and pieces of my post and ask absurd questions you already know does nothing to impeach Bush nor to defend the fraud aka Obama.

[BrandtMichaels]

Well you have very clearly shown why lawyers are such a reviled class. I assure you God’s justice does not equivocate with words and their meanings.

By Obama’s own admissions in his books he is not a natural born citizen. And yet, so far, any/all those in positions of authority have simply failed to defend the constitution that they swore to uphold.

You can continue w/ your posturing, but as for me I want truth and justice to prevail - the sooner the better.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Take your Alinksy trolling elsewhere Obot.

Your Cloward/Piven strategy of elevating your master Obama to a dictatorship by working to sow discord among the military by encouraging insubordination or to foment a military coup has become pretty clear.

Nicely done...I think you've adroitly captured the birther expostulation.

[OldDeckHand]

"I assure you God’s justice does not equivocate with words and their meanings."

Natural-born citizen is in the bible? Mhm, in over 50 years, I don't ever recall seeing it there. Perhaps you can point it out for me?

One of the central purposes of the legal system is precisely to equivocate over the meaning of words. You get that, right?

"By Obama’s own admissions in his books he is not a natural born citizen."

Again, perhaps you can point out for me where the definition of natural-born citizen is found in the Constitution? The US Code? How 'bout any legal holding of Supreme Court decision?

Obama's the President until Jan 20, 2013, or until such time as Congress impeaches him in the House and convicts him in the Senate. That's the way my copy of the US Constitution reads, how about yours?

[BIGLOOK]

Well....it seems time to resort to meta language.

Most jurors rely on the sense of right and wrong that exists in the ether between their ears. Judges of courts rely on that too but hope to focus it on the the laws and procedural process of the case at hand.

It's a trial in itself, ain't it.

[BP2]

Your Cloward/Piven strategy of elevating your master Obama to a dictatorship by working to sow discord among the military by encouraging insubordination or to foment a military coup has become pretty clear.

Now THAT gets MY vote for funniest post of the day ... yeah, it's all part of my evil plot to make Obama KING. You uncovered my secret agenda, Sherlock.

First of all, Obama is far from being my master. It's actually Soros (yes, that's a joke)

Second of all, the military is the ONLY people within our government who would STOP Obama if he ever tried to turn his so-called Administration into a Dictatorship.
The Democrats in Congress certainly wouldn't stop him, now would they?

And third of all, you can hardly call it a “Military Coups” when Lakin is working within the Military and then Federal Court System, bound by the UCMJ and the Constitution, can you? Furthermore, asking for verification that an order is ACTUALLY a "lawful order" is NOT insubordination ... not by standards of the UCMJ nor by the Code of Conduct.

LOL. You've been spending WAY too much time in the
Red Room at your local Socialist library, dear FRiend ...

[BP2]

> Nicely done...I think you've adroitly
> captured the birther expostulation.

Well, imitation is the best form of flattery.

Considering you After-Birthers have no original ideas and must borrow from our knowledge of your own Alinksian tactics, it's really par for the course from you, isn't it?

It's much like playing checkers with a monkey ...

[MWestMom]

And Elvis worked for the DEA... (sarc)

[BP2]

> For this reason, if this goes to trial and sentencing, Lakin’s punishment will
> be severe to probably include some confine, some forfeiture and dismissal.

Do you have examples of when the military has done so recently ... or is it just wishful thinking again?

[BP2]

although that is done so rarely, most lawyers can recite from memory the major instances of such reversal.

It happens several times a year, doofus. Most recently is when Obama intimated the Justices at his own STOU address over the Citizens United v. FEC decision.

What's rare is when the SCOTUS reverses itself.

But the fact that any court would rely on US v. Wong Kim Ark to make a case for the Constitutional meaning of “natural-born Citizen” as it applies to Art II, § 1, Clause 5 is as laughable as Obozo himself!

[philman_36]

You called me a liar, genius.
I know I did. Make up your mind, first I'm an idiot and then I'm a genius? (or is that yet another character attack from you?)

You missed some of my reply, illiterati. Or was that intentional?
And where exactly, meaning in which specific reply, did I attack your character like you did mine?
Is it where I called you a liar? Until you can substantiate your claim I stand correct...you lied.
That isn't attacking your character, it's pointing out your faults.

And to use your own words...BTW, I see you didn't answer these questions...
And if you didn't mean what you wrote then how can anything you type be trusted? Are all of your replies "a poor choice of words" or are just the replies you get busted on the when poor choice allowance comes into play?

Are those just more 'idiotic' questions or are they also too incriminating?

[PA-RIVER]

Maybe Lakin got a nod from one of his superiors. Maybe the judge wants discovery to put an end to the rumors.

If a Judge states that he is ordering discovery to clear Obamas honor and disprove Lakin, what could Obama say to stop him?

[PA-RIVER]

One thing for sure, its going to be ugly If discovery is not allowed.

The headline will be “Obama keeps BC under wraps, American citizen goes to jail for asking for it.”

[BrandtMichaels]

Spoken like a true lawyer by putting words in my mouth that I never spoke nor intended. The 3 qualifications to be preseident are very simply and clearly laid out, yet the lawyers and judges in this country show where their loyalty lies when they constantly and consistently waste America’s time and money dissembling over very plain and simply stated requirements.