President Obama Needs to Prove His Constitutional Eligibility to Be Commander-in-Chief

American Thinker ^ | April 08, 2010 | Terrence Lakin, MD

[neverdem]

Last week, I entered Walter Reed Army Hospital to notify the Department of Defense that I would refuse to obey any orders from my commanding officers -- including President Obama -- until the president produces his original birth certificate. After nearly eighteen years of wearing the military uniform of the country I have proudly served, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan, I felt compelled to take this step. 

I made this decision from much deliberation, after lengthy consultations with many friends, family members, and colleagues, and I firmly believe that all servicemen and women, and the American public, have the right to know the truth about President Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

As military officers, we all take a solemn oath upon commissioning into the Uniformed Services. In this oath, we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Upholding the law is an essential part of our role as citizens; in the military, we are the ultimate protectors of that law. The Constitution is our social compact, which safeguards all of us and ensures the "equal rights" that we are entitled to as American citizens. 

Since Nuremberg, My Lai, and even Abu Ghraib more recently, the military has been taught the hard lessons of following illegal orders. Any reasonable person looking critically at the information and evidence currently in the public domain about Obama's birthplace would have questions about President Obama's claim to be a natural born citizen. I made the decision to disobey all military orders, including my deployment order to Afghanistan, in pursuit of the truth of whether President Obama can legally occupy the high post that he holds today and which entitles him to send servicemembers into harm's way. 

The United States serves an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized, democratic government, where all men are equal under the law and the rule of law is cherished and obeyed. The U.S. military teaches and promotes the rule of law and civilian control of the military to many other nations and military forces around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. This is called the "duty to disobey."

My deployment orders for a second tour in Afghanistan included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I would be glad to obey this order and provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital. Every day in transactions across the country, American citizens are required to prove their identity; standards for identification have become stricter since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Since fall 2008, I have been troubled by reports that the president's original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding his place of birth and "natural born" status. Many people mistook the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate. Until the summer of 2009, the Hawaiian Department of Homelands would not accept this Certification of Live Birth to determine native Hawaiian identity -- the Department insisted upon also reviewing an original birth certificate. 

Many do not understand that the online document was from 2007, generated by computer, laser-printed, and merely a certification that there is something on file which may or may not be sufficient proof of a birth in Hawaii. An original birth certificate could be the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician's or midwife's name. Such a document should lay to rest the "natural born" dispute. This controversy was further escalated by media reports that gave two different hospital names for Obama's birthplace -- even today, the public does not know what doctor delivered the then-future president or which hospital was the site of his birth. No eyewitnesses have stepped forward to affirm that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. Under immigration laws in force at the time, if born in Kenya to a father who was not a U.S. citizen, Barack Obama had no right to American citizenship of any kind, and he could never qualify as "natural born." This is why determining his actual birthplace is crucial.

In 2008, after pressure from news media, President Obama's rival, candidate McCain, produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his "natural born" status and constitutional eligibility to serve as president. The U.S. Senate was strangely silent about President Obama's eligibility despite statements from Kenyan citizens that he was born there, evidently including his paternal grandmother and the Ambassador from Kenya to the U.S. during a November 2008 radio interview. Hawaiian state officials claim that they cannot release an original birth certificate without Obama's consent, declaring that the public has no "tangible interest" in seeing this vital birth record.

I attempted without success through my chain of command for over a year to get answers to the questions surrounding the president's eligibility. I was told that I have no standing to make this inquiry, and moreover, that no one in DoD could answer this question. I made inquiries, unsuccessfully, through my congressional delegation, which simply referred my questions back to DoD. No one I spoke to was able to offer any evidence that the president is "natural born." The burden of proof, it seems, must rest with the White House-- with president Obama himself, as these records are his, and he has chosen to conceal them at considerable legal expense. Remarkably, there is no enforcement mechanism for the Constitution's Article II, Section 1 requirement that the president be a "natural born" citizen -- voters have largely relied on an honor system and a free press to vet candidates for the highest political office in the nation.

While President Obama's records remain hidden, public consternation is growing. The American people have the right to know that their president is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct servicemembers into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should do so only with the knowledge that this important requirement of our Constitution is respected and obeyed. Those in uniform who continue to risk their lives and give the ultimate sacrifice to the service of our country deserve to know that they do so upholding their vows to the oath of office and to the Constitution.

Until an original birth certificate is brought forward that will validate the Commander-in-Chief's constitutional eligibility and put to rest the reasonable questions surrounding it, I cannot in good conscience obey any of my military orders. Unless it is established (sufficient proof that should be easily within the president's power to provide) that he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president and Commander-in-Chief, I and all other military officers are at risk of following illegal orders.  

There is no legitimate privacy right to information necessary to prove that President Obama is legally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. 

I remain at risk of arrest and court-martial, but am mindful always that my oath of office is to the Constitution. It fills me with great sadness that on 31 March, I declined a direct order from my Medical Brigade Commander. This is a man I honor and wished to meet in order to thank him for his unquestionable valor and courage, and yet I could not obey his order. Now, he could order my arrest at any time.   

I hope that President Obama will demonstrate his respect for the U.S. Constitution and release his original birth certificate. My bags are packed, and I look forward to joining my fellow soldiers in Afghanistan, but I will deploy only with the knowledge that I am following legal orders under a lawful Commander-in-Chief. 

For those readers wanting to follow my ongoing story, the American Patriot Foundation has set up a legal defense fund to help me, and they tell me that they will be posting up-to-date information about my case. Their website is .

Dr. Terrence Lakin is an active duty Lieutenant Colonel who serves as Chief of Primary Care at the Pentagon's TRICARE health clinic; he has been selected for promotion to Colonel.

[Non-Sequitur]

Doctor Lakin -- I and all Constitutionalists applaud you for your stand.

Be sure to donate to his retirement legal defense fund.

[The Working Man]

I have read many of your posts in the past and I agree with many of them. I believe that this time we must disagree. Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am. But at this time there appears to be an emotional context here that I am having a difficult time overcoming.

I believe the LtC is within his duty to question these and other orders being given with downward direction by Obama and the DOD. You don’t think he does have the duty to do so.

Let’s just leave it at that for now and let events play out and revisit it later.

Have a good day now.

[edge919]

That damn NPR is nothing but a buch right-wing, fringe, birthers. LOL!!

[edge919]

So what gives him the responsibility to question it?

His oath and the first amendment??

[Non-Sequitur]

His oath and the first amendment??

His oath doesn't give him that responsibility, and the First Amendment doesn't protect him from refusing to obey orders.

[Uncle Chip]

When I took my oath as an officer many years ago I swore to support and defend the Constitution. I did not swear to support and defend and interpret the Constitution, that last part is the responsibility of others.

Then what the hell good was your oath??? and who were those others??? Were they stated by you as part of your oath as well???

You swore to "support and defend the Constitution" -- not to "support and defend someone else's interpretation of that Constitution".

If you didn't read and understand the Constitution, and know what it said and meant, then you should have refused the oath until you could actually read and understand it. But that would have required due diligence on your part --

It sounds like your oath was malleable and breakable and subjective and in need of interpretation as well, and therefore not worth diddly squat.

[edge919]

His oath doesn't give him that responsibility, and the First Amendment doesn't protect him from refusing to obey orders.

The oath says to uphold the Constitution, no?? The first amendment gives him a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Uncle Chip]

I did not swear to support and defend and interpret the Constitution, that last part is the responsibility of others.

Did you leave the interpretation of your commanding officer's order to others as well???

[Non-Sequitur]

Did you leave the interpretation of your commanding officer's order to others as well???

Yes. If the CO came on the bridge and said, "I have the conn" I certainly didn't say, "Is that a legal order?"

[Uncle Chip]

Did you leave the interpretation of your commanding officer's order to others as well??? Yes. If the CO came on the bridge and said, "I have the conn" I certainly didn't say, "Is that a legal order?"

But who did you then turn to for the interpretation of that order????

[roaddog727]

“...I remind him that Presidents come and go as do our elected officials but the Constitution is the thing that remains constant.”

Words to live by

[Artemis Webb]

"The troll crap is getting much older..." Yes dumbass. Someone disagrees with you so they must be a troll.

[Non-Sequitur]

The oath says to uphold the Constitution, no??

The oath says to support and defend, not interpret.

The first amendment gives him a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Petition is one thing. Refusing to obey the orders of his commanding officer and other superior officers in the chain of command is another. Just as in the civilian world, the 1st Amendment gives you the right to petition the government but does not give you the right to break the law while doing so.

[Non-Sequitur]

But who did you then turn to for the interpretation of that order????

Nobody.

[Uncle Chip]

The oath says to support and defend, not interpret.

But you swore to support and defend the Constitution, didn't you?? You did not swear to support and defend someone else's interpretation of that Constitution, right???

Did you read the Constitution before you took the oath???

Did you understand your oath before you took your oath??? Did you interpret your oath before you took it or did you rely on someone else to interpret your oath for you??? What the hell good was your oath or anything else issuing forth from you???

[little jeremiah]

With HRC, it’s mutually assured destruction, I am sure. They could kill each other politically, so it’s a standoff.

May they both go down in flames, the sooner the better!

[conservativegramma]

So now being a supporter of the constitution is being senile?????? And you think its funny to make fun of those who are?????

No wonder this country is in the mess its in.

[Non-Sequitur]

Then what the hell good was your oath??? and who were those others??? Were they stated by you as part of your oath as well???

The 'others' are the Supreme Court. If you would read the Constitution and the history of the court you would know that.

It sounds like your oath was malleable and breakable and subjective and in need of interpretation as well, and therefore not worth diddly squat.

Then would it be safe to assume that you support Ehren Watada and Michael New?

[edge919]

The oath says to support and defend, not interpret.

Sorry, but this is a nonsense response ... almost a non-sequitir. How do you support and defend the Constitution without 'interpreting' it??

Petition is one thing. Refusing to obey the orders of his commanding officer and other superior officers in the chain of command is another. Just as in the civilian world, the 1st Amendment gives you the right to petition the government but does not give you the right to break the law while doing so.

There is an inherent conflict in this situation between Constitutional law and military law. In effect, Lakin would be breaking the law by obeying the orders as are the rest of our military, by failing to demand full disclosure from the pretender-in-chief. Let's call it civil disobedience in order to call proper attention to a major infraction (pun intended).

[Uncle Chip]

The 'others' are the Supreme Court. If you would read the Constitution and the history of the court you would know that.

Is that the same Supreme Court that has time and again stated the definition of "natural born citizen" in its decisions in clear words that you currently hold in disdain???

What happened to your oath??? As I said it wasn't and isn't worth diddly squat, like all else issuing forth from you.