Posted on 08/14/2011 1:58:41 PM PDT by charlene4
Here is the email from Air Force Staff Sergeant Moran,
My name is Daryn J. Moran. I am a SSgt in the USAF stationed in Germany.
I called Pastor Manning of the Manning Report just recently (Youtube video posted below) to share my concern for our country. Boils down that I have not gone in to work last Thurs. and Fri. First time I was AWOL in nearly 13 years. Until B. Obama provides a birth certificate which stands up to professional examination, not even mentioning the seriousness of the fact that his father was never an American, I no longer serve the Armed Forces or take orders.
Basically, I'd rather follow Mr. Lakin, the ex-Army officer who went to Ft. Leavenworth, into war against our real enemies.
My family is in turmoil because I cannot change my heart to support Obama, or protect his criminality. I love America and the Constitution and stand against B. Obama. He should be arrested.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Errrr, what?
Are you sure you’re posting to the right person?
In accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. Carrying out orders in Conflict with it is illegal.
Military subserviance to civilian goverment is a key principal of republican goverment that prevents tyranny.
To LEGITIMATE civilian government. Subservience to ILLEGITIMATE government is a violation of their duty. Till proof is shown, we don't know which he is.
The founding fathers understood this. I'm shocked that so many so-called "conservatives" on this site don't.
Don't appeal to the founding fathers, you who would violate their requirements which could prevented this mess! The founders would not have let it get this far, but thanks to people like you, what could have been a kerfuffle has already cost us 4 trillion dollars, countless unnecessary deaths, (Look up Fast and Furious) and a possible financial collapse and constitutional crisis.
Actually, the opposite is true. You are asking the military to violate their oaths, since you are asking them to do something they are not most emphatically NOT constitutionally authorized to do, namely, to challange the civilian branches of government in their determination of the president's legitimacy.
and one of the requirements of this should be to make Damned certain that they are following a legitimate commander.
Perhaps in your mind that should be the case, but it most ephatically is not. Nothing in the constitition gives the military the authority to make a determination about their commander's legitimacy. That is the job of the electors, the legislature, the judiciary, and, ultimately, the people.
For the military to contravene the determination of two civilian branches of government, plus the electoral college, and the voters to boot, would be a violation of their constitutional oath of the grossest sort, if not outright treason.
My point, which I was sure would elude you, is that there is no one who could remotely be said to be filling those roles, because your simile is so extraordinarily inapt.
What is next? Birtherism expressed in terms of expressionist painters? Or perhaps COBOL v. FORTRAN?
An "Ad hominem" is an argument which says someone is wrong because of derogatory information regarding them. It doesn't matter what is the derogatory information, the salient point is that such information does not refute his argument.
For example, Suppose David Manning said "The Earth Orbits the Sun." An "Ad Hominem" response is "He is wrong because he did prison time for burglary." You see how the derogatory information has nothing to do with the accuracy of his claim?
So yes, your arguments are all claims of bad things done by David Manning, and nothing which actually proves he is wrong. This is known as an Ad hominem "fallacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
"Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it and not as it is understood by others."
The term "public officer" refers to an officer in the civilian government, not the military.
I would prefer that EVERYBODY challenged the illegitimate one. It wouldn't be a risk if enough people did it. (Unless he gets mad and nukes us all for our temerity. I wouldn't put it past him. Do you think the military would follow those orders?)
E pluribus unum.
I agree. However, neither Larkin nor the yahoo who this thread is about has been given an unconstitutional order.
To LEGITIMATE civilian government. Subservience to ILLEGITIMATE government is a violation of their duty.
It is not the military's duty to determine the legitimacy of the presidency. That is the duty of Congress and the electoral college. Both have determined him to be legitimate. The military has no authority to contravene that determiantion.
To have it any other way would be to turn our republic into a military dictatorship, which is what you seem to advocate.
What, are you speaking "newspeak" already?
You are asking the military to violate their oaths, since you are asking them to do something they are not most emphatically NOT constitutionally authorized to do, namely, to challange the civilian branches of government in their determination of the president's legitimacy.
If that be the case, then pray tell How do they know when they are defending the constitution if they are not allowed to hear anything but what other people tell them it means? When must blind robots open their eyes?
Perhaps in your mind that should be the case, but it most ephatically is not. Nothing in the constitition gives the military the authority to make a determination about their commander's legitimacy. That is the job of the electors, the legislature, the judiciary, and, ultimately, the people.
Ergo, Nothing in the Constitution gives the military the authority to make a determination about any Constitutional question, n'est-ce pas? They are to do what they are told by the Robot above them.
For the military to contravene the determination of two civilian branches of government, plus the electoral college, and the voters to boot, would be a violation of their constitutional oath of the grossest sort, if not outright treason.
What contravening? Asking for proof of legitimacy, (something which ALL the civilian agencies FAILED to do) is Treason? Again, why do you think the tail should wag the dog? Why is it too much to ask the little man-child for proof of legitimacy as opposed to requiring the most powerful Military force in the world to ignore their defense of our governing document?
Geeze, it's like giving Denis the Menace the keys to the Death Star, and you're okay with it. The Military mustn't Question little Dennis.
Yeah, that proves it alright.
What is next? Birtherism expressed in terms of expressionist painters? Or perhaps COBOL v. FORTRAN?
How about more abstract cubism arguments from you guys? We all must get our entertainment where we can find it.
Says General Andrew Jackson, as quoted by Lincoln when he was not yet President.
Again, how does the Military know when to defend the constitution if they are not allowed to understand it? (According to YOUR argument.) Seems like a problem with your theory there.
Under YOUR theory of governance, how would they ever know the difference?
It is not the military's duty to determine the legitimacy of the presidency. That is the duty of Congress and the electoral college. Both have determined him to be legitimate. The military has no authority to contravene that determiantion.
Again, it isn't contravening when it is their duty. The Civilian system is falling apart. Just because it can't do it's job doesn't mean the Military shouldn't do theirs.
To have it any other way would be to turn our republic into a military dictatorship, which is what you seem to advocate.
Requiring the Military to demand proof of eligibility would make us a Dictatorship? We are closer than ever before because they DIDN'T do it. A Legitimate President would not be afraid to prove it. Only an illegitimate one, who has managed to trick all the government officials (a not too bright bunch on a good day) to let him in without a ticket, would be afraid to produce his evidence.
Cats run, Dogs chase. Dogs don't run, they sniff butts. Obama runs. He's a cat.
It goes to credibility. He broke into homes and went to prison. Ex cons have no credibility and he is now leading a poor soul to military prison.
I'm sorry I was unable to get through to you. I gave it a shot.
Doesn't change the fact that "public office" means a civilian officer. Jackson wasn't general at the time he made that comment.
Again, how does the Military know when to defend the constitution if they are not allowed to understand it? (According to YOUR argument.) Seems like a problem with your theory there.
I never said the military aren't allowed to understand the constitution.
I think you are wrong about this. I think it DOES apply to all military officers. Remember, he said any public officer who swears an oath to the constitution. Sounds like Military officers qualify to me.
I never said the military aren't allowed to understand the constitution.
It's an axiomatic component of your argument. If they are not permitted to judge constitutionality, how can they defend it when they aren't allowed to comprehend it?
I never said the military are only allowed to hear what other people tell them what the constitution means. Nor did I ever say they must be mere blind robots.
My point is that the military must defer to the judgement of the civilian branches when there is a dispute on a constitutional matter.
For it to be otherwise would be to put the military's judgement above that of the civilian branches of government, thereby destroying the fundamental principle of civilian contorl.
If a military officer believes he is being ordered by the civilian authority to committ an unconstitutional act, than his duty is is resign in protest and take his case to the people.
Ergo, Nothing in the Constitution gives the military the authority to make a determination about any Constitutional question, n'est-ce pas?
Not on a disputed question that has already been decided by the civilian branches of government, as in this case.
What contravening? Asking for proof of legitimacy, (something which ALL the civilian agencies FAILED to do) is Treason?
Refusing to follow lawful orders until being given what an officer thinks constitutes, in his judgment, satisfactory proof does constitute an act of contraveneing the judgement of both Congress and the electoral college, who have already found Obama to be proven legitimate to their satisfaction.
Again, why do you think the tail should wag the dog? Why is it too much to ask the little man-child for proof of legitimacy as opposed to requiring the most powerful Military force in the world to ignore their defense of our governing document?
Because it goes against the Constitution, which gives the power of vetting the president-elect to the electoral college and Congress alone.
For the military to demand proof to its satisfaction would constitute a usurpation of power not granted to it.
Geeze, it's like giving Denis the Menace the keys to the Death Star, and you're okay with it. The Military mustn't Question little Dennis.
That's exactly right. We are not Chile. We are not Turkey. We are not Fascist Spain. The people, acting through the electoral college and their elected representatives in Congress are fully sovereign. The military is the servant of these institutions of the people, and it has no business questionting their judgements.
The military has no business contrvening the will of the poeple, even if they decide to elect someone like Dennis the Menace to the presidency.
I am right. Look up the definition of "public officer."
Me: I never said the military aren't allowed to understand the constitution.
It's an axiomatic component of your argument.
No it's not.
If they are not permitted to judge constitutionality, how can they defend it when they aren't allowed to comprehend it?
They are allowed to make judgements, but where there is a dispute, they must defer the determination of the civilian branches of government. If it were otherwise, we would be living in a military dictatorship.
That is precisely how every single military coup in history has been justified. I hope you enjoy the company you keep.
Requiring the Military to demand proof of eligibility would make us a Dictatorship?
Yes, because that would give the military de facto veto power over presidential elections. If the military didn't like the choice of the people, they could say they haven't been given sufficient proof of the president's eligibility, continually making excuses as to why whatever proof presented to them isn't good enough, just as birthers do with the proof Obama has presented.
We are closer than ever before because they DIDN'T do it.
Bull.
A Legitimate President would not be afraid to prove it.
Depends on the standard of proof. Make that standard absurdly high, as birthers are doing with Obama, and no one can satisfy it.
Again, it isn't contravening when it is their duty.
Please tell me where the constitution gives the military the authority to determine the eligibility of the president.
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.