I'm not sure how much legal education you possess, but in every law school and bar exam in America, binding precedent (and that's what we're talking about here, the trial court is bound by CAAF) is law. That's just the way it works.
"Once again, I point out it is the members of the court...line officers...that have to decide guilt or innocence."
And, once again the ONLY thing that the jury panel will decide with respect to guilt or innocence is the fact of whether or not Lakin missed movement. His motivation for missing that movement is immaterial and irrelevant to the jury panel, and the lawfulness of the orders is decided by the MJ, not the panel.
As for the rest of your response, can you please provide for me the date, the time, the place and the name of the inquiry/inquirer that demanded to see the birth documents of any of the other 43 US Presidents. I'll wait.
I'm no sure why you can't grasp this concept - Presidents of the United States do not answer to the military. And, they certainly don't answer to light Colonels. Every officer on that panel (they will all be o-6's or above) understands this. 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.
|
As for the rest of your response, can you please provide for me the date, the time, the place and the name of the inquiry/inquirer that demanded to see the birth documents of any of the other 43 US Presidents. I'll wait. Can you tell me of another president who has had this much controversy surrounding the events of his birth and Eligibility? I'll wait. I'm no sure why you can't grasp this concept - Presidents of the United States do not answer to the military. And, they certainly don't answer to light Colonels. Obama’s not answering to an O-5. He's answering to the US Constitution — the highest ranking authority in the nation. |
Except when it doesn't. Precedent is overturned all the time. In fact the whole "Selective Incorporation" doctrine arose as a way to overturn the precedent that said that "Privileges and Immunities" of US citizens did not include those protected by the Bill of Rights, but rather uniquely federal things, like the right to use the navigable waterways.
Then there was the case which overturned Texas sodomy laws, (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)), which overturned precedent that was less than 2 decades old (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986))
> 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?
Except for one other time in history, this has never been an issue before. Plus President Obama is a VERY polarizing POTUS.
This issue isn't about LTC Latkin as much as it is about any citizen being able to request simple verfification and open records on the history of the Chief Executive of the Country. A POTUS doesn't require a security clearance because his election by the people is his clearance. However, a POTUS’ (prior to taking office) background should be public record so the people can be more informed.
Asking for a simple vault copy of President Obama’s BC is not a big deal. ANY citizen should be able to do this. IN regards to the larger issue about NBC status because his father is Kenyan......that really needs to be decided by the SCOTUS. It is troubling that no one can get a court to hear it for lack of standing.
My legal training.....nada. I was a Mast Yeoman for several years in the USN during the early 70s. Later as a commissioned USAR officer, I have had the usual dealings with the JAG Corps. I will just say that the pejoratives of “sea lawyer” and “barracks lawyer” describe me. Oh, there was a time in the late 90s to 2005 that I held a license as a private investigator (I worked some with lawyers then).