Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING NEWS!!! JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED!!!!!
www.safeguardourconstitution.com ^ | 06/02/2010 | www.safeguardourconstitution.com

Posted on 06/03/2010 7:02:50 AM PDT by jy22077

LTC Terry Lakin IS NOT RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL!!!! Lakin has been DENIED JUSTICE, DUE PROCESS and a FAIR TRIAL http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/ Lakin needs all the support we can muster.

Everyone needs to email this piece of work and tell him that Lakin has a right to JUSTICE and a FAIR TRIAL. Email away everyone: Daniel J. Dricoll LTC, JA Investigating Officer daniel.driscoll@amedd.army.mil ......http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/io_ruling_on_def_request_for_witnessesevid-usvlakin.pdf Let's make sure this email goes viral! www.safeguardourconstitution.com


TOPICS: Education; Military/Veterans; Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: allaquiver; birthcertificate; breathless; certifigate; exclamatoryabuse; frantic; gaypunct; greatgooglymoogly; hysteria; naturalborncitizen; romney; romney4obama; romneybots4obama; romneybotsvsbirthers; terrylakin; tizzy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-276 next last
To: Lurking Libertarian
Standing, the political question, and jurisdiction. Once those are overcome, the eligibility case(s) can proceed on the merits to a rightful conclusion.

Standing is satisfied with Lakin as his order originates from the president that effects him personally.

Jurisdiction. If not satisfied in Military court, Lakin will have standing for wrongful dismissal that gives him jurisdiction in civilian federal court.

Political question. The courts have the right to settle disputes in all Constitutional matters to include whether Obama is qualified to hold office under the natural born citizenship clause. This issue is not in the purview of Congress to who are natural born citizen that fulfills the requirement to hold presidential office, unless they pass an Amendment to change the NBC clause.

241 posted on 06/04/2010 3:10:14 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

First thing Tublecane I have read your nasty comments and I have taken nothing out of context. I find your overuse of the terms Birther, Birtherism and the other variations to be highly offensive.

“I haven’t read the poll question, but it probably asks a simple question to which it’s almost impossible not to agree (unless you see through it), for instance “Is it a good idea for politicians to be open with their records?”

No sir! The poll questions have been highly specific in most cases. This is the exact question I was refering to in my previous post.

“Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans are concerned about Barack Obama’s refusal to release his longform birth certificate, school records, college records, Harvard Law School papers, medical records, travel records, passport records and other personal documents. What do you think he should do?”

It is not possible to get a whole lot more specific than that. From over 1000 randomly selected participants the results were that 55% of all Americans, 55% of Independents and 82% of Republicans want Obama to release all of his records.

Tublecane you are the one who is in the minority in this forum. If you go over to The Daily Kos I am sure they will welcome you with open arms. Responsible citizens believe that the president should release his records. The most reasonable explanation for persons with your point of view is that they hope that Obama will be able to continue his destructive anti-American socialist agenda.


242 posted on 06/04/2010 3:12:31 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Standing is satisfied with Lakin as his order originates from the president that effects him personally.

The order in this case holds that Obama's eligibility is irrelevant because the order Lakin is being charged with disobeying was not from Obama.

Jurisdiction. If not satisfied in Military court, Lakin will have standing for wrongful dismissal that gives him jurisdiction in civilian federal court.

No civilian court has jurisdiction to overrule a finding of a court martial. Res judicata will bar any claim for "wrongful dismissal"-- if he is convicted by a court martial, his dismissal is not "wrongful."

Political question. The courts have the right to settle disputes in all Constitutional matters to include whether Obama is qualified to hold office under the natural born citizenship clause. This issue is not in the purview of Congress to who are natural born citizen that fulfills the requirement to hold presidential office, unless they pass an Amendment to change the NBC clause.

If you read the order linked in the first post on this thread, Lakin's lawyers were ordered to address the political question issue, and they failed to even brief the point.

243 posted on 06/04/2010 3:15:52 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Not exactly. They said that a quo warranto case could not be brought outside of D.C., which is not the same thing as saying that a quo warranto can be brought against Obama in D.C. The U.S. District Court in D.C. has subsequently dismissed two quo warranto cases against Obama, including one brought by Orly.

Ummm Carter said DC is the jurisdiction for qou warranto against DC critters to include Obama. The two judges did not say quo warranto CANNOT be brought against Obama. And Taitz not being successful in her cases has no bearing on future quo warranto action against Obama.

244 posted on 06/04/2010 3:18:45 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The order in this case holds that Obama's eligibility is irrelevant because the order Lakin is being charged with disobeying was not from Obama.

The order for the brigade to deploy to Afghanistan to a war zone did come from Obama. As order DO originated from the President through the Secretary of Defense down the Chain of Command. As this article so pointedly says below:

Obama Orders to Afganistan Top of article
Obama Orders to Afganistan1

245 posted on 06/04/2010 3:23:55 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
If you read the order linked in the first post on this thread, Lakin's lawyers were ordered to address the political question issue, and they failed to even brief the point.

I explained the political question.

The question is ...is Obama qualified for presidential office? If he is not qualified for Office he cannot give lawful orders. Lakin has challenged Obama to prove that he is qualified to hold presidential office. LTC Lakin took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Lakin did NOT take an oath to blindly follow Obama's orders or any other president for that matter - his oath is to the Constitution.

246 posted on 06/04/2010 3:30:16 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
According to this post the order was signed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, appointed by President George W. Bush. Wasn’t Bush a legitimate president?
247 posted on 06/04/2010 4:36:48 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Pray for my soul. More things are wrought by prayer Than this world dreams of.-- Idylls of the King)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Should he later be determined to be ineligible, the orders that he has issued, the laws that he has signed will not be vacated.

I think that depends on the circumstances. Yes if a person were appointed or elected to an office for which she was not eligible, but under innoncent circumstances (ie. they did not know they were ineligible and did not take measures to hide that fact) , that would be the case, but I'm not so certain it is if the person knew they were not eligible, and thus committed fraud by accepting the appointment or running for the office. Otherwise you are rewarding fraud on a massive scale. Which is not a Good Thing for the rule of law.

248 posted on 06/04/2010 4:41:39 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks that he was duly sworn in and the officers of both Houses of Congress agree. Those are about the only folks who count.

Presidents are not "sworn in". They take the oath of office. It's a condition of becoming President, just as taking the officer's oath is a condition of becoming an officer, but it's only one of many conditions, all of which must be met. It can be done anytime after one is declared the winner of the election, by Congress, and noon on the following January 20th. It's mere tradition, not Constitutional requirement that the oath be adminstered by the Chief Justice, nor even taken orally, or be taken at noon on January 20th.

One of those conditions, is being a natural born citizen. That issue has not yet been adjudicated in a federal court, let alone by the Supreme Court.

But if it turns out he's not a natural born citizen, then he's not President and never was.

249 posted on 06/04/2010 4:49:08 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Gates was retain by Obama and who works for him now at the pleasure of the president. The deployment orders did come from Obama and not Bush.


250 posted on 06/04/2010 4:51:05 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
When was President Obama found to be an unlawful officer?

When has a court actually checked the available evidence to determine if he is, or is not? There has been a lot of assuming, but no examination of evidence.

251 posted on 06/04/2010 4:52:54 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
According to this post the order was signed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, appointed by President George W. Bush. Wasn’t Bush a legitimate president?

And who gave the order to Gates? The person signing orders is not neccessarily the one originating them. I recall one minor order (just a minor reassignment within a larger unit and a change of specialty code) signed by some female civil servant. But it was under the authority of the commanding general, a two star, IIRC, that was two levels up from the colonel who had actually requested the change, and within whose organization the move was made.

252 posted on 06/04/2010 5:01:34 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Quite right, and no court is going to go anywhere near this.


253 posted on 06/04/2010 5:35:45 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Red Steel

I believe that it is argued that the president sets policy and the SecDef issues orders. In addition if his appointment was valid then it is still valid, if he has committed crimes in issuing orders the solution would be impeachment.


254 posted on 06/04/2010 5:41:49 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Pray for my soul. More things are wrought by prayer Than this world dreams of.-- Idylls of the King)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Nope.


255 posted on 06/04/2010 7:05:21 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Nice post on Anthony/Parks.

... can you guess which one it is?

lol, is it 0bama's favorite finger?


256 posted on 06/04/2010 7:10:22 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
he is quite lawful despite our distate of that unfortunate fact.

Oh, really now?

Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
257 posted on 06/04/2010 7:19:08 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative; All

> I’m used to dealing with people far more rational and less in the grip of deep delusion
> than this crowd. But it has been a useful reminder of how fragile civilization is

Indeed.

It takes little imagination to know the crowd that YOU ran with
in 2008, and with whom you feel most comfortable today ...

Photobucket

258 posted on 06/04/2010 9:46:30 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
When has a court actually checked the available evidence to determine if he is, or is not?

There is no court which can redefine natural born citizenship. A constitutional amendment or convention are the only means of altering the oft used definition “born on the soil of citizen parents.” As you pointed out in an earlier note, Obama has made no secret of his British citizenship at birth. That appears to be a clever tactic, hiding in plain view a seldom used definition - counting on the ignorance of most and the threat to the few who might dare raise the issue.

Only once did the legislature venture to modify the definition of natural born citizenship, extending it from citizen parents and birth on our soil to include the children of military and diplomatic personnel born while the parents are on assignment. That was the 1780 Nationality act, which was rewritten in 1795 omitting the natural born citizenship extension, presumably because of separation of powers. Four chief justices and dozens of supreme court cases later, that definition has never been changed, in spite of twenty four attempted amendments, the last in 2003.

If we allow political advantage to decide which Constitutional provisions we should pay attention to and when, we cease to be a republic based upon law. Lakin appears to have taken another path. I hope he has knowledge of Obama’s past we haven't seen because we all know of his British father. About that there is no doubt. If Lakin knows the Constitution he knows Obama is ineligible. There has never been a case to test the definition directly, but the definition is all over the writings of our framers.

Discussions about case law are irrelevant. Read original sources. John Marshall, chief justice for thirty three years was on the Virginia ratification convention. He learned about Law of Nations from Thomas Jefferson's class at William and Mary, where George Washington studied surveying.

What the trolls so active on Free Republic are suggesting has other implications. We must, of course, reexamine what the right to keep and bear arms really means. The well-regulated militia can only be regulated by someone like Cass Sunstien, with the authority granted by congress to regulate militia. Free speech is only free it it promotes social and economic freedom, which will be defined by Soros’ Open Society Institute.

While it is to be expected that The Regime's disruptor's will do their best to change the subject. The most valuable thing that those who value individual liberty can do is to explain why our framers required that our president be born on our soil of citizen parents. We are not the only nation with those requirements. They were carefully chosen, not in exactly the terms described by Vattel in Law of Nations; Vattel included the children of military and diplomatic personnel born overseas, but our framers and justices only used that phrase repeated by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, “Born on the soil of citizen parents.” It was repeated by C. Justice Morrison Waite and cited by Chief Justice Charles Evans Huges, and 14th Amendment author John Bingham, and even in Wong Kim Ark. There are a dozen other citations and no refutations in the supreme court or in the law. That is the Constitutional requirement for someone to hold the office in the U.S., beyond thirty five years of age and fourteen years in residence (which has in interesting story, told by founder and framer Dr. David Ramsay in his thesis on citizenship from 1789, which you can find at http://puzo1.blogspot.com ).

259 posted on 06/05/2010 1:02:38 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Nice summation, but a couple of misstatements here:

Only once did the legislature venture to modify the definition of natural born citizenship, extending it from citizen parents and birth on our soil to include the children of military and diplomatic personnel born while the parents are on assignment. That was the 1780 Nationality act, which was rewritten in 1795 omitting the natural born citizenship extension, presumably because of separation of powers. Four chief justices and dozens of supreme court cases later, that definition has never been changed, in spite of twenty four attempted amendments, the last in 2003.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 presumed to extend natural-born citizen status to those born "beyond the sea" to citizen parents:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

No mention is made of military or diplomatic service in the 1790 Act pertaining to natural-born citizenship. Looking to the 1795 Act which repealed and replaced that of 1790, there is also no mention made of military or diplomatic service. The term "natural-born citizen" was removed and replaced with just "citizen," within language otherwise identical pertaining to children born to citizen parents outside the country.

The very name of these Acts, as well as the very first sentence of the 1795 Act, provide the attentive reader with the rationale for repeal and replacement of the 1790 Act. Natural-born is not and can never be naturalized. Establishing "an uniform rule of naturalization" is a power specifically enumerated to the Legislature under the Constitution. These Acts are legislation of Congress. Therefore, the 1790 Act was outside the power enumerated, and was repealed and replaced.

Regarding Bills for Constitutional Amendment pertaining to the natural-born citizenship requirement, the most recent was in 2008, not 2003. There have been various justifications for such Amendments, with the 2003 instance being justified on the basis of extending "rights" to foreign-born adoptees. Nice sentiment, horrible precedent and future consequences. Election to the office of President is not a right, nor is eligibility to that office.

260 posted on 06/05/2010 1:47:42 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-276 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson