Posted on 02/23/2009 6:47:18 PM PST by Joiseydude
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
somewhere along the line the gubmint will provide some “Warren Commision” type documentation/proof for “h”—this will be enough for msm (includes faux) to shout over the now growing and stifled public outcry, but, like the jfk case will never remove the doubt/truth that exists with we the people.
Just Plain Dick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Given the tendency of the overzealous JAG folks to prosecute, I provided a reference to a punitive Article of the UCMJ which could be used. Articles 133 and 134 could also be troublesome.
Except for one thing: Lieutenant Easterling's title is a matter of fact. The Usurper's title is a matter of fiction.
You bet. The US military was involved up to its eyeballs at the Neurenberg trials. Punishing this dissenter will not make the brass look good at all.
I agree with the soldier on principle, but this could be very bad for him. I hope he has sought out some legal counsel.
...Bravo...
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960
“AND SO, IT BEGINS.....”
I hope the beginning of the end for this ursuper.
I'd say that it's much worse than that. The prof can always read the book. Or, the students can drop the class. Or re-take the course.
No manuals for the prez. And no do-overs for us, either. :-)
Of all the legal challenges, I think that this one is the most interesting. Hopefully the Lieutenant has a good attorney, a decent career as a civilian lined up, and a large brass pair. If the case goes anywhere, he'll need all three.
Aren’t there some underlying assumptions in that oath,
like, the President of the United States is actually legitimate and eligible?
I wonder how the courts will say he “lacks standing” - because you know that’s where this will end up.
~~ THIS IS ON DRUDGE .............. PING! (scroll down, left side)
###
“Soldier doubts Obama’s eligibility, defies president’s orders... “
God bless and protect Lt. Easterling.
“God bless and protect Lt. Easterling.”
Dittos!
These are not “Contemptuous words”, they are the words of a soldier asking for LAWFUL CLARIFICATION of the orders he is following.
Exactly.
From what little I've seen/read/etc, Military Courts are a whole lot less liberal than civilian ones. Not enough to stack the deck, but certainly enough to give Lt. Easterling a "Home Field Advantage", I'd think.
In the end, I think you're right. The plaintiff won't "have standing" or some such nonsense.
What I find fascinating about the whole Birth Certificate flap is that the Administration goes out of its way to identify and face down the "little people" that have slighted it in some way - see JoeThePlumber, Rush Limbaugh, that MSNBC Commentator, and so on.
Now, a number of people have directly challenged the President's authority, and yet the entire administration remains silent. Not a "Look, here's the $#%#$@ document. Shut up and leave me alone". Or a "Begone peasant, how dare you question my...." blah blah blah. Nothing. Zilch. Almost as if someone didn't want attention drawn to it. An interesting dichotomy, no?
For the moment. It won't be for long.
>>If he has standing then what are the real damages he's suffering?
Potential to be accused of being a murderer, ordering others to murder, etc.
>>>>This officer could argue that absent proof that the order comes from legal authority, he places himself in jeopardy of being accused of murder, because if he kills someone offensively, and he did not have the standing of an armed combatant following legal orders, then he is simply a criminal.
>>There are hundreds of layers of authority between this officer and Obama. The orders come from his immediate superior. How do you show that they aren't a legal authority?
If Obama is not legally qualified to be Pres, it's all “fruits of the tainted tree” after that. If Obama is legally qualified to issue an order, then an order from Obama is not legal. It does not become legal passing through the COC, no matter how legally constructed the COC is.
>>>>From a legal standpoint, if Obama tries to simply discharge him, then that opens a huge door for everyone else to get out. It also creates problems for FBI, Secret Service, etc. to be in very questionable status in following orders. What then is status of all Presidential appointees, etc, and their orders to their staffs.
>>Obama won't “simply discharge” him, nor will the Army. They will charge him, try him, convict him, and punish him. Don't think so? Ask Lieutenant Watanada or Private New or any of the others who decided they could decide what orders were valid and what were not.
This is a very different situation. Of course they will try to punish him. But in his case, he will simply say, prove that you had the authority to issue the order. If they cannot or will not prove that, then what possible standing does the government have to punish him, or do anything to anybody. That's why this case is so far reaching.
If the Gmvt through it's Executive branch cannot or will not prove they have legal authority to issue legal orders to this officer, then how do they have authority to do ANYTHING?
>>>>From a PR standpoint, if Obama tries to argue standing, accept the copy, or forced discharge, they open door for huge PR campaign, which is exactly what this officer wants!
>>He's left himself open for being charged with any number of infractions. I guarantee you that he will have standing in his court martial.
Standing is not the ability do do absolutely anything you want to do. Obama could argue that somehow Obama is exempt, that demand is overreaching, but that will not fly... and will not fly is they simply to discharge him either!
Any person willing to challenge a law or authority must be willing to face the consequences of such willing conduct. I am proud of him for doing so, and will contribute to his defense if it becomes necessary.
Well, then atleast he had his moment which is more than history will record for the Usurper in Chief.
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.