A Right to Lawful Command

Canada Free Press ^ | 6/4/2010 | JB Williams

[tutstar]

Members of the United States Military have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and protect the American people from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines have voluntarily accepted the duty to follow all lawful commands and whether Barack Obama & Co. likes it or not, lawful command begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief. The US Constitution defines what a lawful Commander-in-Chief is, in Article II—Section I—Clause V.

More than 400 civil and criminal suits have been filed in countless courts across the country raising a myriad of challenges to Barack Obama’s legitimacy for the office of president, or Commander-in-Chief.

So far, every court has declined to hear any evidence against Barack Obama. Name one time in history when you could find not one court willing to ask the most obvious questions on a matter as pressing as who the president of the nation really is? An Unlawful Commander

Under an unlawful commander, every order is an unlawful order. This means that above all other citizens, members of the military have a unique stake in the matter of who is issuing military orders, and as a result, a very real right to get an answer to that question.

[tutstar]

"Under an unlawful commander, every order is an unlawful order. This means that above all other citizens, members of the military have a unique stake in the matter of who is issuing military orders, and as a result, a very real right to get an answer to that question."

[tutstar]

ping

[bobby.223]

400? If correct, that total is far higher than I would have thought...or heard about.

[Churchillspirit]

If you take out the name of the individual in question, it would seem that this controversy was happening in a third world country.

[kiltie65]

Remember Reagan saying: “Mr. Gorbachov, take down that wall!” Where is someone of that “standing” to say, “Mr. obama, show me your birth certificate!”

[OldDeckHand]

"Under an unlawful commander, every order is an unlawful order"

You can tell this is the "Canada Free Press", the author has no understanding of US civilian or military law. Under US law, to include the UCMJ and military & civilian case law, that sentence is COMPLETELY inaccurate. Actions performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. [Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886)]

IOW, so long as the authority is operating within the legal confines of the office they hold, everything they do, to include every order they issue, is legal.

It's a concept that is apparently out of the reach of this author.

[thecodont]

If you take out the name of the individual in question, it would seem that this controversy was happening in a third world country.

It sure feels that way.

[null and void]

ping

[null and void]

Cite the Constitutional authority to fire the head of GM.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Thanks nully.

The SP’s are like stink on sh!t with these threads anymore.

[OldDeckHand]

'Cite the Constitutional authority to fire the head of GM."

What? Who said anything about "GM"? Non sequitur much?

I'll remind you what I said, just in case you missed it...

"IOW, so long as the authority is operating within the legal confines of the office they hold, everything they do, to include every order they issue, is legal."

While it's not within a President's Constitutional prerogative to run private companies, it's certainly within his Constitutional prerogative to issue orders to the military. Is this too difficult to grasp?

[Elderberry]

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

[tired_old_conservative]

“While it’s not within a President’s Constitutional prerogative to run private companies, it’s certainly within his Constitutional prerogative to issue orders to the military. Is this too difficult to grasp?”

Apparently so. Your effort to educate, however, remains cogent and honorable.

[Shimmer1]

Navy family ping

[null and void]

And when they consistently operate outside the legal limits does that not make them outside the legal limits? Or do you believe in “cafeteria Constitutionalism”

Or is being a little illegal A-OK in your book, as long as it’s the groups you hate getting gored?

[OafOfOffice]

While it's not within a President's Constitutional prerogative to run private companies

Whats a "prerogative"?

[OldDeckHand]

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

And what does this musing have to do with ANYTHING I posted in #6?

Here's my response to you - the color of an chicken's egg is frequently predictive of the chicken's adult feather coloring, but not always.

See, I can throw out meaningless and irrelevant non sequiturs too.

[OldDeckHand]

Good grief, you're non stop. What in THE WORLD does that have to do with a President's authority to issue military orders to the military?

You keep spouting nonsense non sequiturs, one after another.

[tutstar]

JB is careful to do proper research... I didn’t realize it was that many either.

[tutstar]

thats the truth... somewhere like Venezuela maybe??