Posted on 07/14/2009 9:16:09 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
“If Obama is not legally allowed to be the National Command Authority”
Define “legally allowed”. As I said, the courts will define it as the Congress and the USSC having sworn him in means he is the lawful President. What you are saying is that each and every military officer must also agree he is the lawful President and I doubt anyone would agree that a President is only the President if Congress, the USSC, and every military officer also agrees he is. That would be giving the military officers the authority to decide whom might be President.
“Define Legal Allowed”
I did. Constitution bars anyone foreign born from being President. Not some US Code or regulation.
To change the Constitution, you have to craft, pass, and then ratify an Amendment to the Constitution.
That’s the definition of ‘Legally allowed.’
All SCOTUS does is determine whether the decisions of lower courts are Constitutional - that’s it. They can’t amend the Constitution after the fact and by themselves.
Congress can definitely amend the constitution, but the States all have to ratify it too. Good luck with that. I don’t see Utah or Oklahoma doing that anytime soon, for example.
Military officers are not judges. They do not get to decide what is or is not Constitutional. They are not judges of the Presidential election process. They get to follow the orders of the President given to them. They do not get to decide if President was properly elected.
Also, that oath means nothing in law. Sorry to say, but it is true. That oath is neither an offense or defense in any court. It is stricly a requirement of accepting a commission.
The UCMJ is everything. It is written law. Part of that law is mutiny and desertion. Another part is “missing movement”, failing to go where assigned. Another is “contempt towards officials”, including the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. Tread lightly with that one.
Let’s not forget, that officer did not recieve his orders directly from the President. He recieved them from his commanding officer. That order is perfectly valid regardless of where his/her orders came from.
That defense didn’t work for Lt. Calley at Mi Lai.
It’s up to the officer to determine the legality of a direct order. If they don’t think its legal, they have a duty not to follow it.
Military has already spoken on this. Cook, in any other normal circumstance, should be in a brig. He’s not.
They did the stupid thing and rescinded the order, and that set legal military precedent.
If the military had Cook on the law, he’d be in a brig.
What I’m shocked at is that he’s not in pre-trial confinement. The military could have put the request for docs in to the WH, and the WH could have said, “We’re sending them over now. It’ll take four years.”
Cook would be in a brig, and the issue of whether Obama has legal NCA would still be up for speculation. Eventually, Cook would leave the news cycle, and that would be it. Cook would cool his heels in pre-trial confinement until 2012.
Frankly, either the military did this on purpose, or they really screwed this up. There are no accidents or coincidences in politics.
“That defense didn’t work for Lt. Calley at Mi Lai.”
That is a totally different circumstance and situation.
Lt. Calley gave the order to murder everyone and also tried to say he received an order to do so. His defense that he was just following orders didn’t wash as the court could not determine if he ever was given such an order and murder is a known criminal offense that no military officer is bound to obey.
Following or giving an order to commit a known criminal act such as murder is not the same as following a lawful order of someone you believe might not be qualified to have been in the position to give the order.
Again, both the Congress and the Supreme Court gave their permission to seat Obama as President. No military officer is in a position to question that civil authority. Military officers are subservient to civil authority and do not get the privilege of questioning its decisions.
If a military officer believes there has been an overt act of sedition and the President is illegitimate and a coup has occurred then that is a totally different situation and deserves military intervention along with the militias of the States. Playing “I don’t want to go” and trying this BS defense is going to land that officer in the hot seat. If he wants to try this gambit then there are plenty of orders he is following that Obama gave: His pay for instance. Only by order are the paychecks disbursed. He certainly didn’t refuse his paycheck because Obama wrote the order to do so.
Still not getting it.
The first thing you learn at the academy is that YOU are responsible for the orders you follow. If you get an order to shift budget funds from one account to another without legal authorization to do so, and you follow that order, you are going to Leavenworth, KS with your CO.
No guns, no battle, no eminent danger - you got the order from your CO to shift the funds, you did it without questioning it, you both got caught, and you both go to jail. It is literally that simple. It doesn’t depend on the circumstances.
Crimson Tide is a great movie BECAUSE of your more emotional approach to this. Hackman’s character was right - they should have launched their nukes without question. Washington’s character was legally wrong. He should also have backed Hackman’s play. He didn’t.
What’s the right call on board that sub? Hackman keeps the missiles in the tubes, puts the XO in the brig, and hopes he made the right call, and that there is a Pentagon left to sort this out. He can’t relieve the XO and fire the missiles for questioning the order. He can fire the XO for disobeying a direct order, but he can’t launch the nukes either.
When Hackman relieved the XO, he did so illegally, and all orders regarding launch of nukes became ILLEGAL. Anybody following those orders are committing a war crime. Each officer has to make the call on the legality of issued orders. I’m not a fan, because your actions in the field get Monday-morning quarterbacked in air-conditioned offices.
That’s the bed the 60’s made for the military. They may as well lie in it for a spell.
You used a movie as a legal reference? lol.
Officers are responsible to follows orders and only question them within the confines of their authority. The Major does not KNOW that Obama is not the rightful President, so he has nothing to go on to say he will not follow his orders. He does not know anything about the situation, so until he does, he must act as though Obama has been properly vetted.
Once again, that Major is following all kinds of orders from Obama, he just doesn’t want to follow the one that sends him overseas away from his civilian life.
I used legal references, you just didn’t want to comprehend them, so I chose a movie reference, hoping that would penetrate.
I’m down to Sesame Street here, guy.
“If Burt told Ernie to jump off a bridge, would he?”
If you are ordered to hold a position, and you are pretty sure you are going to die, but you suspect the guy giving the order has no legal authority to issue that order, would you follow it? Legal basis for orders is kind of important.
If you do write software code, please tell me it isn’t for Boeing or NASA.
“Legal basis for orders is kind of important.”
Then he had best give back that paycheck and stop following all those other orders Obama has given.
Once again, for legal basis, he has none. He has no proof whatsoever that Obama has not presented any appropriate proof of natural citizenship to Congress. We all suspect he has not, but there is no proof and by no means can an officer assume he has not then refuse orders.
There is no such thing as all the officers of the military must be satisfied to their personal satisfaction that any new President must be legit else they have the right to refuse that President’s orders.
And again, that Major never received orders directly from Obama. His orders came from a superior officer who has legitimate authority to command that he report.
I guess you’re just more proof that we have seriously lowered our standards for common sense and intelligence for officers.
According to your logic, thousands of left-wing officers who hated Bush and claimed he “stole the election” had the right to walk off the job and refuse his orders?
The entire chain of command above Major Cook derives any authority it has from the civilian leadership vested in the CinC and his orders. Commissioned officers (presumably the ones in the chain of comman to whom you refer) are "agents" who act on behalf of the president in the execution of his orders. Army FM 22-100 outlined it as such:
Commissions are legal instruments by which the President appoints and exercises direct control over qualified people to act as his legal agents and help him carry out his duties. The Army retains this “direct-agent” relationship with the President through its commissioned officers. It is the basis for commissioned officers’ legal authority and placement in positions of authority in Army organizations,
IMHO, if they sincerely questioned the legitimacy of Bush's presidency, they had the duty to question orders until either a. his legitimacy was demonstrated to their satisfaction or b. they accepted the consequences of disobeying lawful orders c. they resigned.
What country was George Bush born in?
a. The United States
b. Kenya
Bush’s election was certified by the Electoral College, period. There was no question as to who actually one. Even the combined newspapers spent over a million on a recount and came up with numbers actually favoring Bush.
Seriously, man.
What in country was Obama born, and please provide proof? So far we have none either way.
“Bush’s election was certified by the Electoral College, period.”
So was Obama’s. What’s your point?
“c. they resigned”
And that is about the only way an officer is going to be able to refuse the orders of the President.
Think of the common sense argument here: If the Supreme Court, Congress, and the military Chiefs of Staff recognize Obama as the ligitimate President, what chance does a Major have in refusing his orders?
My point is that this whole thing is moot if he provides his birth certificate.
Since he has not only not provided it, he refuses to part with it, it makes his legal standing questionable. That’s what the Major did.
Got it?
The onus is on the President to provide that documentation.
What if others follow the Major?
Major Cook has not refused the order...he merely sought confirmation of it's legality, as is his duty when receiving an order he perceived to be of dubious legality. From all I've read, Major Cook is willing to comply with his deployment upon confirmation of it's legitimacy. Lt. Calley was destroyed for not having done the same thing 40 years ago.
As a former officer who resigned my commission in disgust during the Clinton years, I have a fair degree of sympathy for Major Cook, and believe he's acting out of genuine conscience and not for self-aggrandizement or cowardice. It seems to me that if we don't expect our officers to act in a like manner, we need to stop wasting time teaching legitimate avenues of dissent and professional ethics in our commissioning sources.
“Since he has not only not provided it, he refuses to part with it, it makes his legal standing questionable.”
Your personal suspicions do not trump the Congress and the Supreme Court swearing him in. They do not answer to you as a military officer and you have no standing to demand they do else you walk off the job. Good luck with that.
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.