| Look at Me!!! |
| Look at Me!!! |
I can do HTML...
and PhotoShop...
Sheesh...
Posted on 05/20/2010 11:35:49 AM PDT by 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?”
...evidence is material as long as there is a strong indication that it will "play an important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal.
Obama's status has absolutely no bearing on the charges filed against Lakin. He is charged with missing movement and disobeying the direct orders of his superior officer. Obama could be unmasked and removed from office tomorrow and Lakin would still be guilty of both those offenses. Given there is no connection between A and B, any request by the defense for any documents relating to Obama's birth will undoubtedly be denied as immaterial.
He must argue that the order is void because the authority is void because the election is void.
“And why? Is it on the Merits?
Or is it something else, like:
— Standing
— Jurisdiction, and most importantly
— Political Question”
Actually, you just cited the MERITS.
Standing means you are asking for something without justification. Jurisdiction means you are asking someone for something they don’t have the authority to grant or decide. Political question means that the Constitution doesn’t give the courts latitude to determine everything - unless YOU are the Big State Obamabot who wants the federal courts to determine everything, or the military to decide who was elected.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll let the legal types decide if my “Perry Mason” reasoning about merit is too crude.
Meanwhile, Lakin’s court martial is scheduled for next month, and we should find out then if BP2 posting pictures has much standing, jurisdiction or politics in helping Lakin. My guess is no, but the facts will reveal who is right. Won’t be long.
And if I’m wrong, I’ll publicly post a picture of the crow I need to eat...
Excellent one sentence summary.
And what does Obama's eligibility or ineligibility have to do with the authority of his brigade commander and the legitimacy of that officer's order? It is his order that Lakin is charged with disobeying, not Obama's.
Sounds to me like a perfect description of Obama’s contemporaneous HI vital records.
With a soldier's liberty at stake I don't see how the court-martial judge can object to discovery of documents that Obama himself has sworn to be legitimate simply because the consequences of proving Obama to be a liar and a fraud would provoke a constitutional crisis.
Oh no! We can't have “the military” doing discovery on Obama’s HI vital records because we might find that they were amended to remove ambiguities that could lead one to conclude that he might have been born in Kenya and Obama may have fraudulently hidden that fact! /s
Is a court martial precluded from discovering facts that may prove that a president committed fraud simply because it has no power to remove the president? I don't think so.
A court-martial is not “the military” but the military component of co-equal judicial branch of our government with all rulings subject to review by a federal appeals court and SCOTUS.
A court-martial discovery finding of fact that Obama committed fraud in hiding a Kenya birth would be the same as a district court finding if it were to be upheld at the appeals level. The Clinton episode proved that a sitting president can be compelled to cooperate with discovery regarding crimes committed prior to becoming president. Obama may be continuing to fraudulently conceal his true birth location while president.
A finding that Obama committed fraud in concealing his birth location would simply be that. No court martial can remove Obama based on such a finding, but the ultimate guilt or degree of punishment for Lakin could well require further adjudication in other courts and in Congress based on such a finding.
But mere fears of a constitutional crisis should not stand in the way of discovery which will either affirm Obama’s representations to the nation or which could show that Lakin had a sound basis in good conscience for believing that Obama’s failure to release his contemporaneous HI vital records demonstrated consciousness by Obama that those records concealed proof or would lead to proof of ineligibility to be CIC.
| Look at Me!!! |
| Look at Me!!! |
I can do HTML...
and PhotoShop...
Sheesh...
1st the definition of standing according to U.S. Legal definitions is as follows: “Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome.” Has nothing to do with asking for something without justification. They may actually have complete justification.
2ndly, standing is not something that is entirely constitutional. The whole doctrine or concept of standing connotes a perspective from which the court determines a plaintiff’s right to be heard. This issue is most frequently raised in suits for nonmonetary relief from government actions. The tests regarding standing speak in terms of the substantiality of the legal interests affected. [Hart & Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 156-92 (1953); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. V McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 (1943); Ashwander v TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)].
3rd, “While the standing doctrine derives from Article III of the Constitution, which limits the federal judicial power to actual "Cases and Controversies." The Constitution never uses the word "standing," however, and does not elaborate on how to define a "case" or "controversy."
Instead, standing is a judicially-created tool for self-policing Article III's constraint on judicial authority. It helps guarantee that the cases the federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- decide are limited to truly adversarial proceedings in which the parties have real stakes in the case, rather than disputes that ask the courts to answer legal questions in the abstract, or in advance of any true conflict. Over time, the doctrine has also become a mechanism for preventing the courts from over-involving themselves in the essentially political disputes that are better left to the elected branches for resolution.
As the standing doctrine has evolved, its basic requirements are that a party bringing suit must have a concrete and particularized injury (or that such injury is imminent), that the injury is fairly traceable to the acts of the defendant, and that a favorable ruling will actually redress the injury.
And as anyone who takes a look at the history of the standing doctrine can see, there has been nothing scientific about its application. To the contrary, all the factors require subjective judgments about whether an injury is sufficiently particularized or imminent, and about how closely tied the injury is to the challenged conduct. As a consequence, it should come as no surprise that standing decisions often appear to be either basically arbitrary, or result-oriented in their reasoning.
How justices approach standing depends on two basic variables.
First, justices who favor broad access to the remedies available in federal court (liberal justices, by and large) favor a lenient view of standing. Conversely, conservatives seeking to cut back on Warren era judicial review take the opposite approach.
Second, justices favoring broad executive power champion a robust standing doctrine that keeps interbranch clashes safely out of court, thereby insulating executive decision-making from challenge. Conversely, justices leery of executive power are on the other side, favoring the consideration of at least some cases where the Court is asked to set limits on executive power.
Third -- and unsurprisingly in light of the other two points -- the Court's standing doctrine has expanded or contracted in direct relationship with which ideological group controls the Court at any given time.
4th, According to Cornell University School of Law, the standing doctrine is composed of both constitutional and prudential restraints on the power of the federal courts to render[E.g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 471–476 (1982); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750–751 (1984).] decisions, and is almost exclusively concerned with such public law questions as determinations of constitutionality and review of administrative or other governmental action. [C. Wright, Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts (St. Paul: 4th ed. 1983), 60.]
As such, it is often interpreted according to the prevailing philosophies of judicial activism and restraint and narrowly or broadly in terms of the viewed desirability of access to the courts by persons seeking to challenge legislation or other governmental action. The trend in the 1960s was to broaden access; in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, it was to stiffen the requirements of standing, although Court majorities were not entirely consistent. The major difficulty in setting forth the standards is that the Court’s generalizations and the results it achieves are often at variance. [“[T]he concept of ‘Art. III standing’ has not been defined with complete consistency in all of the various cases decided by this Court . . . [and] this very fact is probably proof that the concept cannot be reduced to a one–sentence or one–paragraph definition.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 475 (1982). “Generalizations about standing to sue are largely worthless as such.” Assn. of Data Processing Service Org. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 151 (1970). For extensive consideration of the doctrine, see Hart & Wechsler, op. cit., n.250, 107–196.]
In summary, dismissing these cases due to any court contrived ‘lack of standing’ issue merely reinforces the birther position as these cases are being dismissed by judicial activists. It does not give strength to any anti-birther position. A true anti-birther convinced he is right would want these cases heard on the merits in order to disprove them once and for all and move on. On the other hand, a judicial activist with an agenda, who knows the merits may prove politically disadvantageous to his cause, will try and block these cases to prevent any information leaking to the public at large. And this is what has happened.
Jurisdiction means you are asking someone for something they don’t have the authority to grant or decide…
1st, the definition of Jurisdiction according to U.S. Legal Definitions is as follows: Jurisdiction generally means the power of a court to hear and render a decision in a given situation. There are different categories of jurisdiction; in rem jurisdiction, in personam or personal jurisdiction,…” It has nothing whatsoever to do with having no authority. It depends on the courts ‘interpretation’ of a given situation.
2ndly, I would like to point to the Constitution itself under Article III Section 2:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states; …….
Even if the courts are somehow right that only Congress can intervene - according to that same Constitution they still have jurisdiction.
3rdly, In Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be TREASON to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."
Can you think of anything more important to our courts and our country than the eligibility of the President of the United States???? I can’t. Read the above quote again. Marshall is saying those justices who pass on this issue using jurisdiction as a crutch are committing TREASON. I would add anti-birthers are as well. There is no good reason to not be hearing these cases based on a self-prescribed lack of jurisdiction. When it comes to the eligibility of the highest officer holder in the nation – the court is required to hear those cases.
Last, I would like to point out that according to Powell v. McCormack anyone has Standing and proper Jurisdiction to remedy actions contrary to the actual text of the Constitution. Particularly regarding eligibility:
“Chief Justice Warren determined that the only critical one in this case was whether there was a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment” to the House to determine in its sole discretion the qualifications of members. In order to determine whether there was a textual commitment, the Court reviewed the Constitution, the Convention proceedings, and English and United States legislative practice to ascertain what power had been conferred on the House to judge the qualifications of its members; finding that the Constitution vested the House with power only to look at the qualifications of age, residency, and citizenship, the Court thus decided that in passing on Powell’s conduct and character the House had exceeded the powers committed to it and thus judicial review was not barred by this factor of the political question doctrine. [Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).]
Powell v. McCormack:
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.
(a) The case is one “arising under” the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners’ claims “will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.
(b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.
5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.
(a) Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.
(b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.
6. The case does not involve a “political question,” which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.
(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.
(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a “potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches” of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.
7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.
And if I’m wrong, I’ll publicly post a picture of the crow I need to eat...
This one looks pretty tasty.
Thank you for confirming what I wrote.
““Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome.” Has nothing to do with asking for something without justification.”
Yes, it does. If you don’t have a stake in the outcome, you are asking without justification. If you haven’t suffered harm, or if the principle harm is 99.999% elsewhere, then the other person should be bringing it up - not a bystander. McCain, the RNC, Palin, state DAs, etc probably have standing. You, as one individual out of 300 million, do not.
” Jurisdiction means you are asking someone for something they don’t have the authority to grant or decide…
1st, the definition of Jurisdiction according to U.S. Legal Definitions is as follows: Jurisdiction generally means the power of a court to hear and render a decision in a given situation. There are different categories of jurisdiction; in rem jurisdiction, in personam or personal jurisdiction,…” It has nothing whatsoever to do with having no authority.”
Thanks again for confirming what I said. If a court doesn’t have the power to hear and render a decision, then it doesn’t have AUTHORITY. Authority is what gives you the power to make a decision.
And I’ll hold off on the crow until Lakin is in court martial in June...I think I will need to leave some for you.
I thought I was fairly clear. Void begets void.
Baloney!!!
Obama's status or lack thereof is the fundamental reason for his action that led to the charges.
The court martial may try to dance around it, but it will be obvious to all watching that they are dancing with the frauds.
Excellent Points —
Great point, and yet they persist...
While the court-martial my well convict Lakin, the conviction will only serve to embarrass Obama and his defenders.
The court of public opinion will even more pointedly be asking “Why doesn't Obama just tell HI to release his original 1961 vital records?”
YEP
You can’t validate a document from an image, but you may very well be able to invalidate it.
And in a political situation, if the Governor of that state, the Attorney General of that state and the Director of Health all come from the opposition party to the elected official named on the document, judges and Justices are certainly going to take those facts into consideration. Hawaii’s Republican Governor Lingle, Republican Attorney General Bennett, and Republican appointed officials Director of Health Dr. Fukino and Registrar of Records Dr. Onaka have all confirmed Obama’s birth in the state of Hawaii.
“Hawaii: Obama Birth Certificate is Real:”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
I see you keep posting your same redundant garbage that is not true. You Lie.
I’ll go ou one further, there are enough people who want this question resolved one way or the other as to what is and what isn’t an NBC that if the courts refuse to enter the controversy it will only snowball and the people will be the judges and take action. We are entitled to know what the law means and if the SC won’t tell us we will tell them.
Great point, and yet they persist...
While the court-martial my well convict Lakin, the conviction will only serve to embarrass Obama and his defenders.
The court of public opinion will even more pointedly be asking “Why doesn’t Obama just tell HI to release his original 1961 vital records?”
Thank you for confirming you are an operative with a political agenda. Always knew that though. Traitors typically wear or wore the uniform don’t they????
You cannot prove you are correct.
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.