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?”
Yay birthers!
This will have him out of office by sundown!
What? It won’t? It’ll just tie up resources in useless litigation?
Oh. Nevermind.
That isn't a rhetorical question.
Oh, it’s a personal pissing contest now? LOL
No kidding. Do you see something that suggests I was quoting law or even saying how the law is applied??
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.
This isn't about a policy or issue being incorrect. You do understand that, right??
You're kidding right? YOU asked me if I was born in Indonesia, jackass.
Thin skin, eh? You can give, but you can't get.
I've been an American since I was born and still am. That's 55 years and counting.
The clouds could part, a choir of angels could sing, and the mighty hand of God could descend with a gold plated copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate and Lakin would still be guilty of missing movement and disobeying the orders of his brigade commander. Obama's status does not enter into his guilt or innocence on the charges filed against him.
§ 832. Art. 32. Investigation
(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and a recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation by counsel. The accused has the right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigating officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.
...those uniformed service members who sued George Bush and Don Rumsfeld for conducting an illegal war...
It led me to this site...
Sgt. Matthis Chiroux declares Iraq recall resistance
Snip...refusing orders to be recalled from the Army's Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) to deploy to Iraq.
Don't see anything about any suit being filed.
I'm still looking...
the relevance of what you posted with respect to what I said, is a mystery. But hey, don't take my word for it. This is what the Manuel for Courts-Martial says about an orders presumptive lawfulness, and a a service members obligation to follow it...
Disobeying superior commissioned officer.Note that a service member may question an order if it possibly violates hisconstitutional rights. That is NOT license to question order if they violate the Constition. It is a BIG distinction.(a) Lawfulness of the order.
(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
(iii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.
(iv) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.
( v ) Relationship to your Constitutional Rights.
The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.
Congress added up the votes of the Electoral College, and held that BO was elected President. A person who thinks that the United States Army will claim the authority to decide if Congress got it right, much less that the United States Army will decide that Congress got it wrong, and that it doesn't have to obey BO's orders, has so little concept of military law, that arguing with them about it is like debating geography with a member of the flat earth society.
Don’t ever conflate reason with law. They are entirely separate.
No kidding. Do you see something that suggests I was quoting law or even saying how the law is applied??
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.
This isn’t about a policy or issue being incorrect. You do understand that, right??
This isn't an "issue"? That's a fairly broad term that I would think would easily encompass the authority of your commanding officer, wouldn't you think?
“If this guy want to score political points, then he should resign his commission and start a blog or run for office. Otherwise, he should take a big drink of STFU, and start obeying lawful orders.
BTW, my opinion is reflective of virtually every career officer I have ever served with, many serving under Presidents that didn’t vote for or particularly like or even respect as men.”
Having made multiple deployments under Clinton, I’ll back up what you wrote. I can remember a handful of folks in the squadrons who argued they didn’t have to deploy to ‘illegal’ wars like Kosovo, and later to ‘unjust wars’ like Iraq - but after some time with the lawyers, they deployed on schedule. The one exception went AWOL, and was eventually (about a year later) arrested and convicted.
The US military doesn’t decide political issues, such as who won the election (I was assigned to a Navy squadron in 2000, and we had several enlisted who argued GWB wasn’t the true President). We had several who refused anthrax shots - again, it didn’t go very far. Issued direct orders, all the ones I knew agreed to take the shots. I did as well, to include getting an anthrax AND smallpox shot in the same arm, a minute apart while in Korea. It took 4 months for the lump to go away, and may be the source of my views on NBC, for all I know!
You can’t claim a General Officer cheated at the Academy and therefor isn’t a legitimate authority. It doesn’t work that way. And Lakin is about to learn.
I don’t plan to debate with the birthers (see my new tag line, thanks to 1010RD), but I’ll make my prediction and then drop the thread. It won’t be long before we find out who knows more about the law here: ODH or WND! I’m content to wait...
The clouds could part, a choir of angels could sing, and the mighty hand of God could descend with a gold plated copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate and Lakin would still be guilty of missing movement and disobeying the orders of his brigade commander. Obama’s status does not enter into his guilt or innocence on the charges filed against him.
You're inability to use google, although not surprising, really isn't my concern.
Yep.
“I can’t sem to find where Lt. Ehren Watada sued anyone either. He refused to deploy to Iraq. Can’t you be a bit more concise? “
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.