Posted on 09/14/2010 4:24:53 PM PDT by rxsid
"
Statement on LTC Lakin Courts Martial
On behalf of the members of The Veterans Council
Paul Vallely, Maj Gen (Ret), US Army
Harry Riley, Col (Ret), US Army
Carmen A. Reynolds, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
Debra A. Gunnoe, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
Greg Hollister, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
William Harker, Cmdr (Ret), USN
Bill Little, Cmdr (Ret), USN
John Johnson, 1st Lt (Ret), USAF
Luther B. Neff, Capt (Ret), USAF
Michael A. Trudell, Capt (Ret), USN
Fred Herndon, Capt (Ret), USAF
The United States Patriots Union, LLC; Sheridan, Wyoming
The United States Patriots Union has been formed to represent the more than 70% of patriotic Americans who believe that this nation is headed in the wrong direction, who oppose the Obama administration’s policies and make up the 89% of Americans who think every member of congress should be fired.
We have come together to form a Veterans Council within The United States Patriots Union, for the purpose of unifying veterans all over the country in an organized effort to address all issues of great and ongoing concern to the veterans community. We plan to address many different issues from this council looking forward, not the least of which is proper representation and defense of our men and women in uniform, those who have served with honor and distinction, and the families who have endured great sacrifices on behalf of freedom and liberty for all these many years.
Today’s statement relates specifically to the ongoing courts-martial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
September 3, 2010 – Upon receiving word that LTC Lakin would be denied any and all access to discovery and mitigating evidence needed to provide for a legitimate defense, a White Paper was prepared and released by The United States Patriots Union and The United States Bar Association, advising the Lakin defense team to immediately adjust its defense strategy in accordance with established history and law concerning Mr. Barack Obama’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief. In short, to drop the search for an insignificant birth certificate and focus on the right question at hand.
We believe that there are only two potential outcomes of this courts-martial, and that both outcomes bring certain challenges. Our first priority must be to unite in defense of LTC Lakin in an effort to arrive at the best possible outcome for both Lakin and the nation.
1. LTC Lakin is found GUILTY of wrongfully refusing orders. With this outcome we get the following precedents.
a)Anyone, without so much as a birth certificate, can hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.
b)ALL soldiers must blindly follow orders, whether or not those orders are legal.
c)Not even a high-ranking officer has the right to challenge the lawfulness of the orders.
2. LTC Lakin is found NOT GUILTY of wrongfully refusing orders, as Barack Obama’s illegitimacy is confirmed, in which case the following precedents have been established.
a) Every soldier must make the same decision Lakin made, to follow or not to follow an illegal command.
b) The military chain of command is broken at the top of the chain.
c) Obama must be removed from office and there is no one in the normal line of succession to the Oval Office who can replace him, as they were all complicit in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.
We believe that whether LTC Lakin is found guilty or not guilty in his courts-martial, our nation is in a full scale national security crisis. This cannot be avoided by simply brushing the Lakin situation under the carpet as if the legitimacy of this administration and command has not been properly and repeatedly challenged.
The current Lakin defense strategy is limited to an ongoing search for a missing birth certificate that is of no real consequence [Edit: As I and others have mentioned before, his born with foreign allegiance is the primary qualifier], and they have been denied discovery access to any of Obama records, as well as anyone who has had access to those records. There is no defense for Lakin on this basis.
The Veterans Council of the United States Patriots Union has decided not to let LTC Lakin face these charges alone, without a proper defense. Following this statement, a 2nd White Paper concerning the Lakin courts-martial is being released. The PDF is embedded here:
Eligibility for the office of President and Commander-in-Chief is very clear in the U.S. Constitution.“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” -
Article II – Section I – Clause V
These constitutional requirements are not negotiable, nor are they without history, reasoning or vital purpose.
As we discussed in the original White Paper, t he central point in the issue over Lakin‟s refusal to follow orders is the requirement of “natural born citizen.” Note that “native born” citizenship is not the requirement for President. Native born is a statement of birth place, which could be established by an authentic birth certificate for Barack Obama. No such document has been presented by Mr. Obama, despite two years of demands to produce that document.
The requirement is “natural born” – as-in “nature‟s law,” the law of nature, superseding any and all man- made laws or statutes. The term “natural born” was specifically chosen for this very reason, that no man- made law could affect the status of “natural-born.”
The subject is written about extensively in Vattel‟s book The Law of Nations, in which Vattel settles on the definition of natural-born, as follows;
...
It is our opinion that the existing legal team representing LTC Lakin should be re-energized and reinforced immediately by a more experienced military legal team. We hope to offer the Lakin defense team additional legal talent that we believe will lead to a positive outcome for LTC Lakin, his family and our national security interests. We are very concerned that continuing with the current defense strategy, the search for a birth certificate, will likely end in the wrongful conviction of LTC Lakin, establishing a horrific and unnecessary precedent in the Courts-Martial system of the US Military, as described above. We feel obligated to do all that we can to avoid this outcome.
In an effort to support and assist the Lakin Team, The Veterans Council of the United States Patriots Union has worked to make available the best possible legal defense team capable of and willing to assist with the Lakin courts-martial defense.
We recognize that defense strategy decisions are ultimately in the hands of LTC Lakin. We hereby call upon the Lakin defense team to alter the defense strategy and to accept the assistance of additional defense counsel, which would lend its leadership to the case on behalf of LTC Lakin, the Armed Forces and the people of the United States of America.
We call upon patriots to engage and support this vital Veterans Council initiative by joining The United States Patriots Union. Veterans who wish to directly engage with and participate in The Veterans Council should apply to that division, once a member of USPU. A special defense fund may be established within the Veterans Council. The place for veterans to be heard is here, and the time is now.
It is imperative that all veterans support us now, by joining this effort within the Veterans Division of The United States Patriots Union.
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (Ret.) of the USPU Veterans Council can be reached at 406-249-1091 for further comment."
Continued: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/press-release-veterans-statement-on-ltc.html
| HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? |
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
| Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro * | NOT Obama / Soetoro |
 |
 |
| * This assumes HI birth. A citizen of 2 countries at birth. |
|
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].).
Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
================================================================================================================================
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"
French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"
A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
Prior to the Constitution
--- NEWLY ADDED ---
Doctor Benjamin Franklin writes to M. Dumas, Philadelphia, December 19, 1775 (An example of just how important Vattel's "Law of Nations was to the founders)
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel, It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own publick library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts-Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.--- END NEWLY ADDED ---
"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."
Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."
Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."
--- NEWLY ADDED ---
John Jay, President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States, leading opponent of slavery and the founder who wrote to George Washington regarding the suggestion that the POTUS be a NBC , had Vattel in his home library:
"One division [Of the library in Jay's "Bedford House"] contains the favorite authors of the Chief Justice, weighty folios of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel and other masters of the science of international law, standard theological and miscellaneous works and the classic authors of antiquity. Pg. 108. "
--- END NEWLY ADDED ---
In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.
Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:
"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.
The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
The Constitution
The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect UnionAgain, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."...
Article 1. section 8, clause 10:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"
--- NEWLY ADDED ---
James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York Octr. 18. 1787:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."
George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
Why natural law, Vattel vs English common law, Blackstone: "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
--- END NEWLY ADDED ---
After the Constitution is penned
--- NEWLY ADDED ---
On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States from the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City. The President and Congress shared space in Federal Hall with the New York Society Library.
On October 5, 1789, President George Washington checked out two books from the New York Society Library, one of which was Emmerich de Vattel’s "Law of Nations."
--- END NEWLY ADDED ---
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay reaffirms the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.
The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (A case on citizenship and domicile. Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel six (6) times by name, and "law of nations" ten (10) times.)
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..
Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:
commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).
"Veterans Statement on LTC Lakin Courts Martial; First priority must be to unite in defense of Lakin.
The US Patriots Union evolved from a test entity formed in November 2009, which sought to convert patriotic rally energy into real actions across the country. Now is the time, and there must be a place and a way for like-minded patriots to unify in strategic action, combining individual talents and resources in a collective effort to return the power to the right people. This is a "union" designed to confront all of the other corrupt "unions" – corrupted lawyers and anti-American international socialists who have collectively destroyed the freest most productive society on earth. Patriot Union members will finally have real representation backed by a war chest able to move the constitutional conservative ball forward, even against overwhelming odds. The Patriots Union is only the vehicle. It's the people who must take the action to take their nation back. It's "the People" who matter most! "
bttt
These veterans ought to read the judge’s decision. She refutes their erroneous claims about the law quite well.
And this veteran doesn’t believe we need to have military members deciding which orders to obey based on political theories. When I was attached to a Navy squadron, we had enlisted who thought they had the obligation to disobey GWB because he wasn’t a legitimate President, having been selected, not elected. Happily, a discussion with the Legal office convinced them to deploy with us instead of face court martial...
Still, I doubt they will - anyone who hasn’t read WKA before spouting off on the meaning of NBC isn’t likely to believe in doing their homework before writing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Right. I presume these are honorable people, and that they are trying to help LTC Lakin. But they are wrong to argue that the birth certificate issue is off limits.
It wasn’t LTC Lakin who raised this terrible problem. It was Obama and his supporters and enablers, who knew that he was not a natural born citizen, and in fact probably an illegal alien, yet agreed to cover all that up and push him into office.
The United States may be the birthplace of Obama but it is not his country.
Obamas country is Kenya.
Why, because of a law some foreign nation passed that says so? I can't believe I'm reading this on a conservative website.
The only evidence for the above is Obama’s statement. A birth certificate would confirm that his father was, indeed, Kenyan and British.
Hey Bro. please stop posting that long desertation on every post. I fully agree with it, but it gets old seeing over and over. I jump on those on the opposite, like Non-Sequiter that keep saying the same, IMO wrong, stuff over and over. I thought I should be consistent and ask you to do the same.
Once again, I agree with your stuff, it just gets really old seeing it posted over and over.
The best possible defense for LtCol Larkin is have his defense attorney present only two documents:
Document One: The formal proceedings from the Nuremberg Military Tribunal. This military tribunal, including USA JAGs, concluded that just following orders was an insufficient defense if an officer encountered an immoral or illegal order. Several high ranking Nazis were hung and others imprissoned for terms up and including life.
Document Two: The formal proceedings from the Tokyo Military tribunal. This was the second, and lesser known, post World War 2 military tribunals that convicted ex-military leaders for following immoral or illegal orders.
This is the real basis behind LtCol Lakin’s efforts. If BHO is ever found to be an illegal president then any action performed under his orders, even through the chain of command as per Nuremberg and Tokyo, could subject LtCol Larkin and other serving officers to trial by international tribunal for war crimes.
So in your opine the US Constitution has no meaning? In your opine Public Officers can ignore the Constitution at will?
When I was subject to the public school system they taught us
America is a nation of Laws applied equally to all. And that
America is a Constitutional Republic. And that the US Constitution is Supreme LAw of the Land and All our elected and appointed Officials are bound by the US Constitution
If the Military Judge made an opinion contrary to the written
Constitution her opinion is crap./Void.Without reason.
No, in my opinion the folks quoting Vattel are ignoring the Constitution. Vattel was clearly NOT the source for NBC, so anyone who says he was has no credibility.
The deployment to Afghanistan, as ours to Saudi & Turkey in 2001, is supported by the full government. It is not solely Obama’s decision. Nor does an order by Obama acting as President get overturned if he is at some point proven ineligible, so the question simply is not relevant to the court martial.
There is nothing inherently illegal about a deployment order, so the burden is on Lakin to show he KNEW it to be an illegal order prior to disobeying.
Meanwhile, it is not the Court that decides what a valid election to President consists of - that is the role of Congress, which can refuse to seat or count the votes of the Electoral College, and which in some circumstances could elect the President by themselves. THAT is the Constitution, and Lakin is trying to circumvent it.
d) The oath required of military officers to defend the Constitution will be meaningless.
That is a pretty bold statement with absolutely NO credible evidence to back it up. But then I forget, you deal in horses arses instead of common sense knowledge...
At the time the constitution was drafted, each state was an individual sovereign state, there was NO central government thus you could say they were each a sovereign nation state. The problem was how to birth a federal government with limited powers in order that the states still kept the majority of their sovereignty. The feds were only to handle national security & a smooth interstate commerce system that promoted a free capitalist society. Now where would you need to go for advice on how to set up a government to basically handle business as the states did at the local level between other nations? You go to the “Law of Nations” which also known as the law of nature & nations.
The Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
Now they didn't pull that out of their butts for no reason so if you can show why the confederate congress purchased copies of it & why they used them during the continental congress please be my guest and please do tell us why this work, the standard International Laws of Nations & Nature, used by ALL nations at the time has no bearing on this issue.
Frankly I don't think the founders went specifically with this, I think it is just a part of it. The laws of nature which early English common law declares in their very 1st constitution that they were not using at the time stated that nationality was determined by the parents(father) not the location no matter where the child was born. However, the laws of nations narrowed it to born to parents(father) in the country because of the adaption of feudal law. Either way, we do know by the individual laws of the states at the time(1776-1789) the feudal law was thrown out & citizenship were once again based on the laws of nature aka the bible where we find the very 1st laws on citizenship. The Brits were not the 1st established colonies America. The Dutch & Swede laws already in place when the Brits arrived were derived specifically from the bible & the laws of nature & nations.
Vattel wasn’t translated NBC until 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written, and it requires a poor translation to do so. Hence, Vattel was NOT the source of NBC for a document written 10 years earlier.
Meanwhile, there was the common law phrase ‘natural born subject’ known to every drafter of the Constitution...and the law of the US was citizenship of birth, not parentage.
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
But I forget. You deal in fantasy, not facts.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I do appreciate the input. b.t.w., there is new stuff in there.
The US was formed based on Vattel’s Law of Nations.
Sorry, but you are showing your ignorance YET AGAIN!
On October 5, 1789, President George Washington checked out two books from the New York Society Library, one of which was Emmerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” - Remember this from the newspapers a few months ago? It was a big ha ha in the news about how much he owed in fines. But it gave us a HUGE boost in proving that the Founders DID follow Vattel.
You need to understand, most of us here are extremely well versed in most aspects of the Obama eligibility and subjects having to do with it. You can’t come in and act like we are idiots, we aren’t. We have been following this situation since before “the one” was elected. You need to be more informed before you start trying to push us around.
LTC Lakin is a hero and I doubt you will find many people on this blog site that would argue that point....
Indeed. Not to mention that per the English Common law, naturalized subjects were considerd natural born subjects. If the framers got their understanding of NBC from NBS (English common law), then Arnold Schwarteznegger would be POTUS eligible. Clearly, the framers relied on the Law of Nations instead.
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.