Posted on 04/09/2010 4:27:11 PM PDT by EveningStar
It's guts ball time for an Army surgeon who has vowed not to deploy to Afghanistan with his unit unless President Obama provides evidence that he's a "natural born" citizen of the United States.
In response to previously published statements by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army presented an official letter of counseling that directs him to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., on April 12 to begin deployment preparations with his unit.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
That's like saying that since a priest married you and your wife that the Catholic Church certifies you are both marriagable and not already encumbered. No so-called "birther" case has made it to the Supreme Court, now has it?
Well said. He should report for duty and get his 20 in.
The Supreme Court has, however, turned down the opportunity to review them.
I rethink my data all the time, TOC. Just a quick look at your posting history convinces me that you may, in fact, be the editor of "fight the smears", but more input and analysis may make me conclude that you're just a small cog in the JD blogswarm. Or something else altogether :).
Do you even know what this man is responsible for on duty? He doesn’t take his job lightly — but, that includes standing for the Constitution in the best way he knows how. You may not agree with him, you may think he is wrong to do this, but he isn’t crying, holding his mom’s leg and saying, “I don’t wanna go” - which seems to be what you are suggesting.
What is “fight the smears?”
I’m unfamiliar with the JD blogswarm, either. To be honest, the first time I saw DU, my initial reaction was “depleted uranium.” So I’m really not up with this lingo.
Don’t waste your time with the con man, he’s nothing but a troll.
“Of course, Lakin’s whole point was to force a court martial. That, at last, will open the discovery process. You may also bet that this is, at this point, what the military wants - it is a straight way to get the alien menace out.”
I don’t share your optimism, but you made me smile just on the off chance you are right.
Priceless.
Roberts was not going to refuse the swearing in without deadbang reason not to. Maybe Robert E'ffed up the first time in swearing in Obama on purpose? It is not a realistic scenario for Roberts not to do so, and because he went forward with it, doesn't support your faulty premise that Obama is qualified to hold office per Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
There is nothing unlawful about a deployment order. Obey it, or be punished.
Deployment order come from the SECDEF a cabinet position that performs delegated duties from the President of the United States. The President derives his authority and legitimacy from the US Constitution. If he is in violation of said Constitution because he is not eligible to hold office, he would haves no legitimacy or authority to give orders, therefore, the orders he gives would be unlawful.
“Don’t waste your time with the con man, he’s nothing but a troll.”
No, I’m just a rational person with experience in the law and court matters.
Really?? You sound like a familiar. You keep the witch someplace near? Tic TOC, tic TOC....
I believe the media scrubs material from the Internet when it doesn't support their agenda at the time and when they can get away with it. Anyone with half a clue knows the media is overwhelming liberal and will lie to support their agenda. I put what the media has written through the BS test like I do your posts, which smells badly.
I think that in opening arguments, defense should ask the court to define “domestic enemy”, and then declare Obama as a domestic enemy, and the defending officer’s oath to defend against all enemies in higher priority than his orders to deploy.
OBAMA IS A DOMESTIC ENEMY IF I’VE EVER SEEN ONE!
Right, and obama is legit. If you’re so familiar with law, go study this and get back to us:
• “Minor v. Happersett - yes, it’s been mentioned on FR but not fully hashed out. I don’t see how, if this was decided by the SCOTUS then they did indeed give a definition of the term NBC.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html";
Not only has it been discussed, but so too have other SCOTUS cases that have that exact definition that the framers (no doubt) used when they entered the NBC requirement without debate.
Attorney Apuzzo mentions these cases in the “Kerchner v Obama” & Congress case:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
“Really?? You sound like a familiar. You keep the witch someplace near? Tic TOC, tic TOC....”
I am familiar with the concept of a familiar, as in “an animal-shaped spirit who serves for witchery, a demon, or other magician-related subjects.” That seems to make your next comment odd, given that the familiar serves and is kept by the witch, not the other way around. You then lose me with the ticking clock. Or is that some other in lingo?
Has anyone in Congress - which has the power to remove a President - or the Supreme Court shown any doubts? Has any case gone forward?
No, and no. Therefor, the military needs to assume he is legitimate unless and until someone demonstrates a reason he is not.
An officer refusing to obey GWB in 2001 would have been full of crap. So is this one.
Obama’s entire life story is convoluted!
Can anyone here even begin to think that the Founding Fathers who risked everything to become independent of the crown would put language in the Constitution that would allow the son of a British Subject to someday become POTUS?
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.