Army Calls ‘Birther’ Doc’s Bluff

Military.com ^ | April 9, 2010 | Bryant Jordan

[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.

[STARWISE]

The Indiana decision, if it can even
be called that, is a joke.

[Red Steel]

A big joke.

[eyedigress]

Its an LOC and basically stops any advance. He could have done worse and given a referral which tells the military the buck stops here.

[tired_old_conservative]

“The later language in United States vs, Wong Kim Ark is far more explicit and can only be read to conclude that a historical and legal basis for considering children born here to be NBCs exists

Like the other cases, Wong does not explicity say who what a Natural Born Citizen is. It says who a citizen at birth under the 14th amendment is, but never says Wong is one. Furthermore the case did not turn on Wong being an NBC, merely a citizen, so all that verbiage, other than the 14th amendment referances, is so much fluff and dicta.”

I already stated that Wong Kim Ark didn't conclude that the person in question was an NBC because it was only asked if they were a citizen. The dicta, however, is overhwleming. And Dicta is not just fluff.

However, all one need note is that it's such fluff and dicta that another court cited it directly as a basis for concluding that children born in this country are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. How does that compare with all the obscure references you guys are constantly throwing about and misrepresenting more often than not?

Everybody knew Obama had a noncitizen father when he ran. It was stipulated fact, and nobody in any position of authority accused him of being ineligible. Oh, I forgot, EVERYONE in the country is ignorant except for the diehards posting here.

Yeah, the Supreme Court doesn't even want to look at this nonsense, passes it up every chance it gets. Oh, I forgot, they're just cowards afraid of riots.

An actual court didn't even blink an eye before slapping some silly plaintiff across the face with the fluff and dicta of Wong Kim Ark, which is as clear as day to any legal professional being honest about it. Oh, I forgot, what do they know compared to the hacks you have pursuing this, stringing you along with one pipe dream after the next, ever some new obscure reference to misrepresent.

Honestly, you guys are the kind of client that any honest lawyer cuts loose. You won't accept reality and we're not interested in stealing your money for nothing.

[El Gato]

In the end, I personally can see no other alternative than for the Courts to decide this, as Congress is too partisan to seriously tackle this question. Despite nearly 30 attempts by Congress to legally define or otherwise alter the interpreted meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" since the 1870s, no Bills have ever made it to the floor for an actual full Congressional vote.

Unless they were in the form of a Constitutional Amendment, it would not matter if they did make it to the floor, were voted on, passed and signed by the President. A mere law cannot overide the Constitution, nor define or redefine its terms. Much mischief would ensure if they could.

Thus Congress, even in an impeachment and/or Senate trial, cannot define "natural born citizen". They have no power to do so, other than the power to pass Cojnstitutional amendments for the several states to ratify.

[tired_old_conservative]

“The Indiana decision, if it can even
be called that, is a joke.”

It can be called a decision because it legally is, and that's the classic bar stool complaint—it's a joke because it doesn't say what I want.

Nevertheless, there it is.

[El Gato]

Spokesbabe Okubo revealed herself as a total ditz when she originally confirmed the COLB because she said it looked like her own. You'd think the HI DOH would have a formal procedure for authenticating official documents. "It looks like mine" isn't exactly what you expect from a document expert or state official. I wouldn't be surprised if she has a purseful of counterfeit money that she's unwittingly passing around.

Exactly, what good is a relative easy to fake piece of paper, ostensibly issued by the state, if the state cannot verify it's authenticity, to those depending on the information it contains. Kindergarten entrance, little league baseball, or eligibility to the Office of President. Same principal should apply to all, and more.

[eyedigress]

The Bastard needs to be deported.

[Spaulding]

Thanks STARWISE. Sorry to group Parsifal among those from whom I continue to learn. I need a program to identify the players!. While she diffuses serious questions, she is sometimes clever, and asked a reasonable question about the Hughes case.

Hughes is complex and fascinating. Charles Hughes, besides trying to slip past Article II Section 1, was the author of the decision in Perkin v. Elg, where he affirmed the Minor v. Happersett definition which is the Vattel definition of natural born citizenship.

I'm happy to have serious questions. If I can't answer them there is usally someone here who can. It is easier to tell the trolls if they are blatently misrepresent things, as does “tired_old_conservative”. Perhaps we could rate contributors? My habit is to scan until I see your name, Bp2, rsxid, and a few others from whom I expect to learn something new.

I too thought SCRIBD was owned by google. I determined that they use the Google server farm. But I spoke with a founder who told me otherwise. They were on their third round of venture funding, which has always meant looking to “cash out” when I exchanged messages. They have a number of major clients. Their operations are in San Francisco, Obama country - at least thus far. (When serious brownouts begin they may begin reconsider, and move to Nevada or Texas.)

And thank you for the reference to the Herlihy paper. It was scrubbed from SCRIBD, and from the Kent Law Review archives, but later returned to SCRIBD. It may no longer be there? The Breckenridge Long article from the Chicago Legal Times of 1916 was scrubbed. It was a photocopy from a public library service in Newton Mass. I did save it, and if there were a way to post scrubbed documents on FR I would be happy to share it. I don't believe there can be any copyright issues with a 1916 Legal Journal available in a public library?

[Red Steel]

What is a letter of counseling?

Here is a letter he got. It mostly says that Army Chief of Staff General Casey is not in his chain of command, which is correct since Chief of Staffs do not have a command. They are in an advisory role to the President. I would not expect the doctor to know, but there is a certain poster and troll who swore to me and a few others once upon a time that the Chief of Naval Operations was in the chain of command. That's pretty ignorant coming from someone who claimed to be a career naval JAG officer.

[El Gato]

What I think might be more overriding however is if Obama chose to exercise any of his Indonesian citizenship rights as an adult. It's pretty hard to claim NBC-status under such a scenario.

Yes that is different. Unfortunately even that might not be enough, had he been an NBC to begin with. The courts, and the laws, have made it increasingly difficult for citizenship to be removed involuntarily, and what counts as a "volutary renunciation" has also been narrowed.

[El Gato]

She's simply making the common sense and correct observation that no one can state that an Internet image alone is valid or not.

In principal, it's not possible to determine if an image represents a real valid document. But the same is not true, in general, about an image being a fake or fraud. You may not be able to do that either in any particular case, but in many case you may be able to do so. For instance, if the form number or the format of the form is wrong for the time period it was supposed to have been produced. Or if the seals are obviously wrong, or the signatures are from the wrong people. Lots of other things could mark a forgery for what it is.

[Red Steel]

An example of the silly opinion we got from Indiana:

"16 We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, ... the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen."

What the Indiana court left out. It should be noted that Arthur successfully hid the facts from the public sufficiently enough for him not to be challenged on his incumbency for his lack of being a natural born citizen. In later years, Arthur attempted to keep his legacy intact, so he destroyed all the personal documents that related to his birth. Indiana's reasoning here is because Chester Arthur got away with it, precedent has been set, therefore, Obama should be able be an eligible and legal president. Poppycock!

[El Gato]

The dicta, however, is overhwleming. And Dicta is not just fluff.

It's not hard precedence either. But that dicta is pretty much fluff. It does not support the conclusion in the case, namely that Wong was a citizen at birth under the 14th amendment, due to being born in the United States.

[El Gato]

Honestly, you guys are the kind of client that any honest lawyer cuts loose

It just so happens that I asked two lawyers, whom I trust, about that particular case and the fluff. Both agreed, it was fluff.

They are on opposite sides of the NBC question though. Which is awkward, since one is my daughter and the other her husband. Sort of like Mary M. and James C. :)

[Red Steel]

I find it stunning that legislatures think they can rewrite the US Constitution that they swore to uphold without an Amendment.

[Spaulding]

One addition to my reference to the Breckenridge Long essay in the Chicago Legal Times: I didn't remind anyone what that essay was about, and with these lengthy threads, some will skip to the end, and have no idea what was being referenced:

Breckenridge Long was an attorney, excellent enough to become attorney general under FDR, concurrent with Charles Hughes’ tenure as chief justice. In 1916, when Hughes was running against Woodrow Wilson for president, Long, then representing the St. Louis Bar asked if Hughes was “A Natural Born Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.” His article is concise and clear, confirming the definition stated by Chief Justices John Marshall, Morrison Waite, Horace Gray, author of the 14th Amendment John Bingham, and later, ironically, by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in his decision in Perkins v. Elg where he cites Minor v. Happersett.

Any reader confused by all the names and references should ask. There is much BS floating about designed to obscure the truth. You will quickly find out to whom the truth is important by asking. Very little about this eligibility issue is simple. But if any statement appears to refute “A natural born citizen is born in the country of citizen parents,” be suspicious, because that definition has not changed since 1758. There is even precedent in Calvin's case of 1608, but English law has no fixed constitutional framework, and legal research can turn up a variety of citations to satisfy a claim.

[El Gato]

The Bastard needs to be deported.

If he was born outside the US, and never naturalized, he very well could be, as an illegal alien. Wife and kids could stay or go, they are citizens. Although the kids would not be natural born in that case.

[edge919]

Wong Kim Ark says a heck of a lot more than that, and has a devastatingly detailed section compared to the “minor” historical notation of Minor. You're either being disingenuous, or you don't know what it says.

Allow me to school you. WKA runs down a lot of historical precedent, but a lot of it revolves around what it means to be a natural born subject. They also show the difference in having permanent versus temporary allegiance. By the time the decision is concluded, they do not declare the plaintiff to be a natural born citzen and predicate citizenship upon the permanent allegiance expressed by the parents being permanent residents. I notice you fail to show what it is you think I don't understand, so let's drop the personal nonsense. It's not a winning argument.

Yeah, they just avoided the heck out of it, didn't they? Of course, there is no actual sentence stamped “Obama is an NBC,” but anyone who can read the decision and claim that's a meaningful distinction is, again, being deliberately disingenuous.

You just proved me right in two ways. I'm not the one being disingenuous here. If they thought Obama was definitely an NBC, then they sure didn't come out and say so ... and for smart reasons. This allows them to make toothless and misleading statements when the brunt of their decision was nothing more than turning down the appeal for failing to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." It's hard for me to respect any judiciary that uses political rhetoric (so-called "birthers") in justifying any decision. And again, their justification in rejecting the plaintiffs argument is undermined by the admission that WKA does not declare ANYONE to be a natural born citizen. You can't claim to be guided by a decision that doesn't have the actual outcome you're claiming.

[1234]

...Do you remember Danny Williams? He was supposed to be Bill Clinton’s love child in Australia or somewhere. Clinton let the drama surrounding the accusation build and build until finally The Inquirer proved that they were not related.

Klinton's probable paternity was NOT conclusivly challenged by any physical evidence. The DNA stuff was NOT followed to a conclusion. It was the first time I saw THE DRUDGE REPORT COPPING OUT, saying that KLINTON was not WILLIAMS' father. Drudge was aware of what I'm writing, but WIMPED OUT.