Posted on 07/11/2009 7:36:26 AM PDT by conservativegramma
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida with orders to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has filed a court demand to be classified as a "conscientious objector" because without proof of the commander-in-chief's eligibility for office, the entire army "becomes merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen."
A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, already has been scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m., according to California attorney Orly Taitz, who is handling the claim.
Cook told WND he's ready, willing and able to carry out the military needs of the United States, but he raised the challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president because if he would be captured by enemy forces while serving overseas under the orders of an illegitimate president, he could be considered a "war criminal."
"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.
"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.
The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for temporary restraining order will be held Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
he has essentially done just that.
This (and every other member of our Armed Services) officer swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.
The issue is absolutely crystal clear, no wiggle room. Sounds to me like this man is taking that oath seriously, I salute him and hope he prevails.
Far too many Americans are standing buy and watching our country go down the crapper. Fat lazy slobs that are happy as long as their cable tv works and Dominoes can find theit couch.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Precisely the kind of thinking that will allow the military enforce Obama’s gun seizure orders without batting an eye.
Constitution trumps career. Good for him!
“He’s not questioning Obama’s citizenship, he’s questioning whether or not he’s a ‘natural born’ citizen. There is a difference.
“
Considering no one can show that if he isn’t natural born he is not naturalized, either, I’d say that is not correct.
Precisely the kind of thinking that will allow the military enforce Obama’s gun seizure orders without batting an eye
You are talking about something completely different. I never advocated following illegal or unconstitutional orders. Quite the contrary.
They are not going to let this get to court. They’re going to dismiss it, then go after the National Guard officer.
Can anyone list the past presidents that have produced a birth certificate, solely to show he was eligible for the position?
I agree. If deployed, one would have to wonder if he was always on his game. I don’t believe this guy should be deployed either. He definitely should resign and do this on his own time and dime.
Excellent stretch.
Bingo.
Let's assume for a minute for the sake of argument that President Obama is not eligible to be the president, and therefore is illegitimate. (I am extremely skeptical on both assertions to start with.) At most, this would mean that President Obama didn't have actual authority to give orders and sign legislation and so forth. He still has apparent authority which is ratified by the rest of the United States Government.
In corporate law, if the election or selection of a corporate executive was technically invalid according to the Articles of Incorporation, it doesn't invalidate every action he does because he acts with Apparent Authority.
Then there's the issue of standing. This Major cannot demonstrate it. The simple fact of the matter is that in order to establish standing, a potential litigant must articulate an injury-in-fact caused by the allegedly tortious conduct of the defendant. This major cannot show that his deployment or other orders would not have come but for President Obama's allegedly fraudulent election. This case won't survive summary judgment either.
Xzins on another thread rightly observed that when a soldier refuses to obey an order on the grounds that it is unlawful, you'd best be damn sure you are right or it's game over. In the case of this field-grade officer, he's spent a minimum of 12 years in the military already. His retirement is in sight. He's pissing that away on a half-baked conspiracy theory with grandstanding attorney's that don't have his best interests in mind. This is a political stunt that will destroy an officer's career for no purpose.
A tragic waste.
Besides, we see how devestating the last impeachment was to the then president. I doubt most people even remember. Impeachment is one thing, but removal from office, I doubt, will ever happen.
Correction — he’s not a National Guard officer. He’s a major in the U.S. Army Reserve. There’s a difference.
I think the issue here, is that nothing yet has been proven to need support and defense of the Constitution. He really is only defending what a lot of people suspect, not factual evidence.
The US Army defines a deserter as someone who has been absent without leave for 30 days.
It happens a lot more then I thought.
This Army Officer has now drawn the eye of the State to himself. A gesture that will be crushed. If the BC issue is his hill I hope he stands well upon it. As an Army Officer, I would hope he picks his battles well. Only zealot’s do suicide missions.
I’m not disagreeing with the substance of this major’s stance, but as another poster pointed out, he also took an oath of office as an officer in the United States Armed Forces which states:
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”.
It is not the same oath of office taken by the President, Vice President, or some other officers of the United States Government. As uniformed service members, we often stated that we defended the constitution but were not always the beneficiaries of it. We accepted that when we took our oath office.
Until provel otherwise, Zero is President, and the good major needs to follow his orders. He needs to comply with his deployment orders, and if he wishes to continue his grievance he can do so after he returns from active duty. As a reserve officer, his active duty time is most likely limited to a specific period, after which he returns to being a private citizen.
Just my two cents on it as a former regular army personnel officer.
Again, I don’t disagree with the sentiment of his grievance.
Seems like exactly the same issue, different articles of the Constitution.
“He’s pissing that away on a half-baked conspiracy theory with grandstanding attorneys that don’t have his best interests in mind. This is a political stunt that will destroy an officer’s career for no purpose.”
Exactly.
God Bless this man, a true patriot!
Perhaps a better question is “Can anyone list the presidents who have gone to these extremes to conceal their past?”
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.