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?”
Are you saying they didn't have a right to do that?
The prosecution doesn't need to prove anything. The orders are presumptively legal. Lakin can only plead guilty or not guilty. If he chooses to assert a defense that the orders were not lawful, then he must plead guilty as an affirmative defense. The burden of proof then falls to him, not the government. It's trial law 101.
"There you go presuming again. I did serve, in the Navy."
Then you must have missed your classes at OCS on the UCMJ. Just saying.
"You've sure got a lot of supposition and assumptions in your argument."
No sweetheart, I just have an iron-clad understanding of military law.
I am absolutely saying that they didn't have a right to do that, and the Supreme Court agreed, multiple times.
It is not the prerogative of a uniformed service member to question the authority of civilian command authority. Orders may be refused if they're are facially illegal. There is nothing facially illegal about a deployment order.
It is the right and duty of every American to challenge the law if they feel it is unjust and/or un-Constitutional.
Perhaps you could fill me in on where and when those suits were filed. I can't seem to find anything.
The only problem with this is that the civilian command authority has the power to initiate a court martial, which recognizes the civilian link in the chain of command. It would stand to reason that this should be able to go both ways, with no limitation on the ability of service member to question all levels of his or her chain of command. Plus, doing so aligns with the oath to support and defend the Constitution.
You are absolutely wrong in your assumption.
You have no experience in military law. Thus further discussion with you is a waste of time.
No it won't.
It's not the right of a member of the US military. You don't have a right to question order if you feel that they are unjust or unconstitutional. Something's constitutionality is a political or legal question, not a military question. This only seems to be complicated to people who were never military officers.
Orders are presumptively legal and service members question the legality of order at their own legal peril.
Then you're not looking very hard.
You know a lot about military law but you don’t know squat about being an American. Were you raised in Indonesia?
Don't ever conflate reason with law. They are entirely separate.
There are ways to legally seek redress through the rising levels of command with respect to issues or policies you believe to be incorrect. Refusing orders isn't one of those way.
Oh come on now . . . you know Helen Thomas or one of the Whitey House correspondence are going to ask either Gibbs or Obama about this issue. Wait until the next news conference.
“Thus further discussion with you is a waste of time.”
There are also dozens, perhaps hundreds of cases from Vietnam, and even a few from the original Gulf War.
I knew enough to serve my country for close to 25 years. How about you?
illegal military order
A military order must have a military connection and must not contravene existing law, such as the Constitution, treaties, and statutes.
An illegal order is just that - illegal, and does not require that it be obeyed.
As the law either has no valid military purpose or contravenes existing law, obeying the order may expose the person to prosecution.
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.