Lakin’s best defense IMO is not simply to challenge Obama’s eligibility, but to properly outline and defend his constitutional right and responsibility to challenge Obama’s eligibility as related to his military oath.
For example, Judge Lind said she wouldn’t allow discovery of Obama’s birth records by claiming irrelevance via the political question doctrine, which says ONLY Congress has the responsibility. To counter this, you have to show that the Constitution only specifies that Congress can certify the vote of electors. It gives no implied nor direct responsibility to Congress to verify eligibility. It also does not give this responsiblity to the electors in the various states. By virtue of the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
We know there are at least TWO states that have laws that allow citizens to challenge the eligibility of presidential candidates. Ironically, these two states are Obama’s ‘home’ states: Hawaii and Illinois.
Hawaii’s statute (§11-113) says, “If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91.”
The statute gives citizens a short window in which to challenge having a name on a presidential ballot ... and a hearing would be called upon an objection. Obviously Lakin can’t use this law, but, IIUC, he’s a native of Colorado, so he wouldn’t use the Hawaiian law to challenge anyway. He would either have to use a Colorado law (or the state law for wherever he is registered to vote). If such a law does NOT exist, then the 10th amendment is saying this power, NOT delegated to the United States, NOT prohibited by the United States, and NOT exercised by a particular state would be reserved to the people. IOW, if there’s no similar law in Lakin’s home state, then he has the constitutional right to challenge Obama’s eligibility. I’ll explain, next why this is important.
Under the lawfulness of orders in the UCMJ, it says that an order is assumed to be lawful as long as it doesn’t require the service member to break the law. At least this is the one part of lawfulness that the military court specifies. The UCMJ also says, “The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.” Lakin must establish and/or assert that he has a constitutional right to challenge Obama’s eligibility, and a responsibility to challenge Obama’s eligibility because of his military oath, which is to defend and support the Constitution.
Also on lawfulness of an order, the code says, “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.” Ckearly, this gives Lakin not simply an ability to challenge the lawfulness of his immediate superior issuing the order, but the lawfulness of the authorization behind the order. In Charge II, specification 4, the order was made in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, which is under the authority of the commander in chief.
Also under Art. 92, it says “General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense ...” The UCMJ acknolwedges the chain of command in lawfulness of orders ... and again, the charge that was connected to Operation Enduring Freedom also connects Lakin’s charges to supporting the directives of an unlawful president. The distinction is that Lakin is challenging Obama’s constitutional authority by NOT being a natural born citizen. It is a constitutional right and Lakin can disobey orders that prevent him from challenging Obama.
Without establishing that Lakin has a right to challenge the authority of the chain of the command and a constitutional right to challenge the lawfulness of his commander in chief, he won’t get a chance to bring up Obama’s failure to meet the definition of natural born citizen, so it’s kind of pointless to talk about dropping the strategery based on demanding the birth certificate.
If he does successfully argue his right to disobey orders, then IMO he still needs to pursue the birth certificate as it will expose Obama for criminal fraud as well as being ineligible for office. And it’s important for any challenge to Obama being a natural born citizen is done on the basis of the Supreme Court’s definition (not Vattel), which said, based on ‘common law,’ that “... all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ...” The military court would have no foundation to argue against this definition.
Placemark.
Brilliant.