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 ...
He will have access to the information if they try to charge him. If they charge him he will get more soldiers following him. If they do not charge him the case will go forward. If it gets dropped, more soldiers will follow him. Nice how that will work.
Scalia said it during a speech at a university - i will find the cite. Scalia said a candidate will have standing. nice how that works. Enjoy.
He can try. His charges will no doubt stem from refusal to obey his company or his battalion or his brigade commander. He can try and bring Obama into it, that doesn't mean he'll be successful. The military judge will have the final say in what's allowed and what isn't.
Scalia said it during a speech at a university - i will find the cite.
If you would please. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Justice Scalia and would be interested in reading his thoughts on the matter.
Can we apply the Lilly Ledbetter standard to your statement?
Wasn't the point of the "Lilly Ledbetter" law that Obama signed that she couldn't possibly have known that she was being harmed until well after the statutes of limitation of remedy had passed?
Since Obama refuses to make his qualification documentation available, how can anyone know they are harmed until it's too late to remedy the situation?
-PJ
I also wondered why there can't be an Article VI Supremacy argument to be made.
The "one production by a civil servant from Hawaii" is hiding behind Hawaii's data privacy laws to protect Obama from having his birth certificate revealed. But doesn't the fact that the presidential qualifications stem from Article II of the Constitution, and Article VI say that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," and that "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" open a door of opportunity?
Wouldn't this assume that the Constitutional requirement to show qualification trumps Hawaii's state privacy laws? Couldn't this be used to compel Hawaii to provide Obama's birth certificate?
-PJ
Think about it two ways.
First, you are confusing “Damages” and “Damage.”
“Damages” are a quantifiable amount of (usually) dollars that serve to compensate for “damage” done.
You can be “damaged” (hurt/endangered/jeopardized) without having a fixed set of “damages” that would be identifiable to right the wrong...
You can sue in court or mount an affirmative defense that you are taking / took the action you took to prevent yourself from being DAMAGED..... all (perhaps) so you will not have to sue for (monetary) DAMAGES later.
Secondly. It is Black Letter Law that you cannot make a contract to do an illegal thing.
For example, no matter how we word it, you and I cannot enter into an enforceable contract to rob a bank.
By extension, one cannot be required to do something by someone who does not have the standing to make you do it.
Yes, there is a requirement to be a certain “class” of citizen to be President, but to whom, does who, have to “show” that a prospective president meets that requirement?
To what degree of certainly?
When?
By what means?
Upon whom does the burden of proof fall? The supposed president or those who would seek to disqualify him?
Do any later amendments conflict with the natural-born requirement?
How is natural-borm defined?
Who defines it?
Outa the range of my 3.6 in Con Law!
See posts #97 and #171.
Continuing to play the Constitution game, I would say the "to whom" is:
1. to the other two branches of government. That would be Congress and the Supreme Court.
2. to the other parties of the Constitution, which would be to the several States, and to the People.
3. One could argue that for 2. above, the Senate acts as agents for the several States, and the Hosue acts as agents for the People.
For "who," I would say the candidates running for the office, and failing to show proof during the candidacy does not relieve the winner, as president, from showing the proof afterwards (amendment XX). Actually being sworn in and taking office does not relieve one of continuing to meet the qualification (and need to show proof), nor does running for a second term. If proof was not provided upon taking office, the fact of having been president should not relieve one of showing proof for taking the office a second time.
-PJ
Not logically, no. Ledbetter was able to identify real damages suffered, though after the time limit in the statute. For this officer there is no time limit, just a question of what damages Obama may have caused him.
Isn't the officer simply trying to ascertain whether he's being damaged, instead of waiting for four or eight or more years to find out if he was, in fact, damaged?
-PJ
By extension, one cannot be required to do something by someone who does not have the standing to make you do it.
So we get back to the question, what is Obama forcing him to do?
Seriously, Is this a filed matter?
Do we know AOR (Attorney Of Record?) Will they take a contribution?
Proving that seems to be the problem. He doesn't seem inclined to help.
His case now is for prevention, rather then compensation or redress.... and that certainly is an arguable case!
If this is true - it's going to happen one day - one way or another.
If we let our country go down the drain & live in fear - it will only get worse & then it will be past the time anything can be done to rectify the problem.
He’s just getting his jollies by hassling people on this topic; he’s said so himself. He does it for enjoyment. Pretty sick, huh?
>>>Then again, Im not a lawyer.
But you are a promoter of liberalism on FR.
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.