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.
>>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.
1: Sorry, but you are legally wrong. He is not seeking anticipatory monetary damages. He is effectively seeking a declaratory judgment that he does not have to comply with an order (which may be legal or illegal as to form) because the PERSONA OF the supposed ordering authority lacks the authority to issue such an order. He is also preparing to assert an affirmative defense against failing to follow a lawful order by maintaining that there was no legal authority of the PERSON issuing the order in question to issue such an order.... or in fact, any order.
He is claiming that Mr. Barack Obama is not President because he is not constitutionally qualified to be President, (or a Senator for that mater.) He may not even be a citizen at all. All he is proven to be, this officer would claim, is a resident of Illinois and/or Washington DC, with no more power or authority than any other citizen of Illinois or Washington.... and this officer is not required to follow any order from an ordinary resident of the US.
Regarding the courts stepping into an issue before the consummation of an act; happens all the time. Plaintiffs sue for relief so as not to have to perform an act they had contracted for. Typical arguments are, it's not safe, it's not legal, the scope of the work has changed, etc.
Getting monetary damages before a loss-causing act is unusual. Being relieved of responsibility to commit such an act is very common.
- - - - - - - -
>>>>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.
2: Sorry, again not legally correct. The issue here is the legal status, the constitutional qualification of Obama THE PERSON to issue the order in the first place. It would be as if a Village in New York State posted certain speed limits, but the Village, 200 years ago, was never properly constituted by the State. Any speeding citation issued by the Village police officers that allege violation of Village ordinances is null and void, regardless of when issued, because their really is “no such village.” (I got out of 2 speeding tickets that way.)
This officer would say “I do not have to follow orders that emanate from a certain Mr. Barack Obama because Mr. Obama is not the President, because he is not constitutionally qualified to be the President.”
>>>>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.
2: Sorry, but Watada and New argued a very different set of points of law. They argued that such ORDERS were unconstitutional, that it was not a congressionally approved war, etc. They never argued that the man claiming to hold the office of President is not really the President because he is not constitutionally qualified to do so.
Apples and oranges.
- - - - - - - - -
>>>>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.
He may be able to get standing as shown in area 1 above. He certainly would get it if the gmvt seeks to punish him for disobeying any such order questioned for the reasons described herein.
By the way, the trick here would be to keep it very simple. One, basic elemental legal point; Obama is not President. If Obama cannot prove he is president, nothing else matters.
It's like a case that occurred during the Korean War. 2 F-84 fighter-bomber pilots screwed up big-time. Assigned to bomb a port city on the east coast of North Korea (in the days before GPS and the like) they overflew their targets and bombed a similar looking port city on the East Coast of Russia!
The Russians had both still pictures and video of the planes dropping the bombs and the Air Force could establish that they were the only 2 F-84s aloft within 500 miles over either the assigned or actual targets that were hit.
The photographs were published in Pravda and motion pictures were available on Soviet television, so the courts could easily take judicial notice of them. But the one thing the Russians would not do was send any witnesses to the American court-martial of the two Air Force pilots.
The government put on a very convincing case that these two young lieutenants have screwed the pooch and caused a huge international incident by bombing the wrong city. Anyone with an IQ above their shoe size new that that was exactly what happened.
But the brilliant defense counsels refuse to put on any defense whatsoever. They simply argued, as a point of law, that the government had supplied no witnesses who could testify that they saw those airplanes/pilots bombed the Russian city.
The government counsel screamed, pounded the table, State Department got their knickers very much in a twist, and the military establishment in Washington was very upset,,, but all charges were dismissed.
This young officer could ask for a declaratory judgment or mount an affirmative defense to any accusation of violating an order by simply saying that it can't be a presidential order, when the person issuing the order (or causing it to be issued, or allowing it to be issued under the collar of his authority) is not the president.
The only problem with this defense is that it is a 100% “fly or die” defense). You can try to make this defense and then if it doesn't work, try something else.
It's like the insanity defense; the defendant's counsel can not argue insanity with all the requirements of describing how disturbed his client was at the time he committed the crime, and then if that does not work, claim that the client didn't commit the crime in the first place!
Notes:
1: The serial numbers of the A/C were not readable in the Russian video or still pics.
2: COLOR of authority
3: You CANNOT try to make this defense.
Note to self: Dear Self, Reread your posts after applying the Spill Chucker!
More: (sorry for the long previous. I’m accustomed to getting paid by the hour.... or the word.....)
Watada and New argued theie orders were illegal. This guy would argue; I don’t really care if the supposed order is legal or not, because there was no order, because there was no legally empowered “orderer.”