Posted on 07/15/2009 5:37:44 AM PDT by buggy02
Shirley I didn’t call you glib.
It’s possible that the entire political edifice is corrupt. I’m not certain to say either way.
However, I DO know that this issue will come down to the judgement of nine individuals. When considering their verdict, those nine individuals will have to make some very hard choices.
Down one path lies the impeachment of the “first black president”, political dislocation, the condemnation of most of the political establishment and media, the “confirmation” of America as a fundamentally racist nation, and possible civil unrest and riots following a verdict against Obama.
Down the other path lies the status quo and stability. You will be cursed and vilifed, but only by “fringe” elements of the political spectrum. There is the possibility of civil war, but far into the future.
Which path do you think (realistically) that our Supreme Court is likely to take?
That SCOTUS decision only found that the plaintiff in that earlier case did not have standing. The Court cannot and has not decided any other issues beyond standing—until a plaintiff comes along who has standing files a case. It seems as if Cook has standing—that’s why the MSM is finally taking an interest in the debate.
That former Russian is doing such a good job because she knows how precious the “rule of law” is and how dangerous the tolerance of dictators is. That’s why so many believe that fresh immigrant blood always has made the U.S. better and stronger. She fled the Russian dictatorship relatively recently and can spot a corrupt would-be dictator as soon as she sees one. I guess that’s something we non-immigrants are not so equipped to do. In other words, our Founding Fathers were able to craft our timeless Constitution (and its built-in protections) not because they were able to look 200 years forward but because they only had to look 10 years backward.
So many pessimists. Why would the military revoke the order if they were planning courts martial or indeed any disciplinary action? BTW his lawyer doesn't seem worried. I expect she understands the situation better than any of us do. She thinks they won.
What other of our brave military men and women will be seeking the same revoke of orders?”
Rumor mill says there are more lawsuits from military persons waiting in the wings.
Perhaps this tactic will crack open the Birth Certificate crap and expose the hoax in the Oval Office for what he really is.
With all the engagement policies being issued to our military and how they should fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot more decided to get out of the military.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2294045/posts?page=22#22
Thanks for the update.
“It will take the U.S. military to save us here at home.”
Why them??? Why not ourselves???
Here is the latest on this..
Two more have joined the suit..A retired Two-Star General and an active reserve Air Force Lieutenant General..
So you would want to have a commander who thought you were engaged in war crimes?
You are a moron.
My point is it’s highly unfair to ask any soldier to serve under an officer who calls the mission a war crime.
Do you disagree?
You are mixing apples and oranges. I don't question a soldier's right to refuse to follow an order to commit an atrocity. In that case the action itself is illegal, regardless of who orders it. That's not at all the same as rufusing to follow an order because you believe the CIC is not legitimate, not because of the nature of the order itself. Presumably he didn't think fighting in Afghanistan was illegal under Bush.
My main point is a soldier shouldn't be put in the position of serving under a commander who says the mission is illegal. That is reason enough for the Army not to send him.
Sure there is but if he was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen. That is the only issue, was he born in Hawaii or not?
Not that he wouldn’t do that but this is getting serious now and there is speculation about the issue in foreign capitals. It is out of the gamesmanship area.
There is no such charge under the powers to remove a president. A fraudulent president will have to be impeached just as would a delinquent one.
I don’t know where you come up with that idea amusing as it is but there is nothing about usurpation in the Constitution.
Only the power of the impeachment clause is capable of legally removing a sitting president no matter how he achieved the office.
Where do you know of any other legislative means of doing this?
Well, isn't that just the case with PINO in office and has NO authority to give any orders in the field, huh???
OK...Let's arrest him. Try him for fraud. Through him in Leavenworth, and let him try to be “president” from a prison cell!
I do not believe the USSC will toss the Constitution into the toliet on something so fundamental as this. There is no pernumbras lurking about here. It is black and white.
We have seen SC dominated by Republican appointees force a sitting Republican president to turn over the means of his destruction. So it cannot be ruled out that justice will be done.
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.