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 ...
“I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”
He IS defending the Constitution, Obama has not been shown to be legitimate, and NOBODY HAS STANDING. It’s a farce by our own Supreme Court.......
“But does anyone actually KNOW that he is NOT eligible?”
We know he REFUSES to prove he IS eligible.
I knew this was going to happen and posted it on another thread a while back.
Meanwhile, some Army Ranger wannabee type comes back and says “Soldiers will follow orders no matter what!”...
“but is it an actual crime not to be eligible?”
How about swearing a false oath?
Potential. Courts deal with real issues not theoretical one. They deal with real damages, not potential one. For the plaintiff to have legal standing the damages have to be real and concrete, not potential or theoretical. Otherwise I could sue airlines because one of their aircraft could potentially crash and I might potentially be on it. Real damages. Real issues. Real standing.
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.
Nonsense. If the chain of responsibility goes that far down then it should also go that far up, and President Bush should have stood trial for Abu Grahib and the killing of civilians. The officer in question will follow the orders of those appointed over him. If his captain gives him a lawful order then he is obligated to follow it, and his questions about Obama doesn't change that one bit. And if he thinks it does then he'll find out very quickly that the Army disagrees with him.
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.
Absolute nonsense. Both Watada and New tried to argue that the order they disobeyed was unconstitutional. Both found out that they were wrong. I don't see this being any different.
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.
I imagine it will be, though it should be noted that do date he hasn't refused to obey any orders. He's merely part of a suit questioning Obama's qualifications. When that suit gets dismissed then he'll have to decide whether to put his convictions into action and start disobeying.
I think you're confusing apples and oranges. You need legal standing to initiate a legal proceeding against someone, like Obama. In that case you're the plaintiff and this officer has to surmount the same hurdle that all the other cases have had, showing real damages suffered as a result of Obama's actions. If this officer decides on his own that Obama is a fraud and refuses to obey orders given to him by his superiors because of that then he's going to be on the receiving end. It'll be the military equivilent of a criminal trial, and if he tries to use as a defense that Obama isn't qualified to be president and tries to subpoena the birth certificat and all the rest then it'll be up to the presiding judge whether to allow it or not. I don't see that happening. But you keep holding out hope based on that and we'll see which of us is right.
I think that applies more to you.
It is not up to Mr. Easterling to determine who is the president, and whether or not any particular president is "qualified." The Congress has already certified the election in accordance with the Constitution. Mr. Easterling is bound to accept that ruling, by his oath to uphold the Constitution.
It is destructive to military morale and discipline for officers to suggest that they are in any position to determine which orders and commanders are valid. It is also directly contrary to the principle of civilian control of the military -- one of THE fundamental principles on which our government is based.
One would think that the military geniuses on this thread would have recalled how well Rome fared when the Praetorian Guard did it.
(-red-faced former enlisted guy)
Well I was a naval officer for over 27 years so I have more than a passing understanding of the UCMJ and military court martials. I never sat on a court martial, but appeared at a witness at one general court and was involved in the lower level processes of NJP when members of my division or department ran afoul of the rules and regs and went to Captain's mast. So expert? No. Fairly knowledgable? Yes. How about you?
Damages? Are you saying that this is nothing more than a civil suit?
And the other side of the coin is?
The President is the Commander in Chief. The Lt. is a serving officer. That brings this into question-
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
Paragraph (a)(1)is quite the catch-all.
I'm speaking from 27 years experience in the Navy. It's my judicial experience I get from the Holiday Inn. Your friend, the lawyer, might want to try that. I found his arguements to be bizarre to say the least.
Do you ask to see a professor’s credentials before you attend his class? Do you review your doctor’s degrees and board certification before you will let him treat you? Has this soldier seen the birth certificate for his commanding officer?
Our finances have taken a huge hit, but I'd also kick in something. I hope some patriot will offer to hire him if that becomes necessary.
Well anything is possible. It would have to clear several levels of military courts and reviews before going to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The problem with that is that unlike with the other appeals courts, review by CAAF is purely discretionary. And if that court decides not to hear the case then by law it's dead; denials by the CAAF are not subject to review by the Supreme Court. So the case would have to go to the General Court martial and lose there. The results would be reviewed by the convening authority and upheld. The case can then be appealed to the Army Court of Criminal Appeal where it would have to lose again. From there they can appeal the the CAAF which would have to accept the case. Only if they lost the appeal there could they go to the Supreme Court, and then the court would have to take it. Want to figure the odds?
Yeah. What Taitz is doing and what this officer is assisting in is no different than all the other suits she's filed.
Yad, tada, yada.
Why don’t you just go away?
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.