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.

[Red Steel]

Interesting BP1.

[verity]

Jim Rob has many choices from this asylum.

[verity]

"How can you court martial someone with no evidence they did anything wrong?"

If he fails to report to his duty station for deployment, he can be charged. Moreover, your question indicates culpable ignorance of Title 10, U.S.C.

[bushpilot1]

On citizenship

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of “natural born citizen,” there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:

http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=112&Itemid=44

[Las Vegas Ron]

As I pointed out earlier, Arthur’s father was not a US citizen until Arthur was in his teens. Didn’t matter then, won’t matter now.

That's because it wasn't known then, just like for all intents a purposes it isn't know about obama now.

Chester Aurthur's ineligibilty was not confirmed until 2008, thanks to this issue.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Jim Rob has many choices from this asylum.

Jim Rob would also like to see bammise bona fides.

[bushpilot1]

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth.

[verity]

We all would.

As many folks have said, Lafkin's action will have no impact except self destruction.

[Mr Rogers]

“Give Mr Rogers credit for knowing his script well. Not for common sense...”

You are the one who thinks Obama’s mother was born in Mongolia...

[BP2]

The document shows a belief in the Christian Religion in order to be naturalized..how things have changed.since.. 1794..

Well, remember the First Amendment forbids the federal government from establishing a state religion; it does NOT forbid the States from doing so.

Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with a state Constitution in 1818. Massachusetts continued to establish a state religion until 1833. Maryland is one of eight states (along with Arkansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania Tennessee and Texas) that STILL prohibit Atheists from holding public office.

Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ruled that such State anti-atheism laws are unenforceable. However, IMO, the question of the “no religious test clause” applying to States still remains unresolved — the argument simply needs to be restructured.

More on Google Books (click on book image):

[Las Vegas Ron]

Sometimes doing what you believe is right requires risking all, even thought the odds are stacked against you. The guys climbing the cliffs on Omaha beach did it because they believed it was right, and that's what it would take to win.

I agree this probably is not the best way to go about it, but I applaud the man for doing it because I agree with him that Obama is illegitimate and I wish him success.

None of this would be necessary if we had an honorable POTUS, I put the blame square on him.

[Red Steel]

No other court was specifically asked this question. That's why no other court specifically said it. Anyone versed in the law would not find that a point even worth raising.

The Supreme Court have had many opportunities to declare citizens natural born and they have, and have had the same opportunities not to call them natural born citizens.

In the 1939, Perkins vs. Elg, the Supreme Court specifically referred to Miss Elg as a natural born citizen.

In another SCOTUS court case

KAWAKITA V. UNITED STATES, 343 U. S. 717 (1952)

"At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; "

We see that Kawakita born in the United States and described as a native born. Why did they call him native born and not natural born? The answer to that question is obvious, And we see Kawakita also too an oath of allegiance to the United States? No natural born would have to do that because being a natural born citizen there is no question about the allegiance to a country.

Do you think you can reach the obvious and correct conclusion? I doubt you will since you like to drink the Jim Jones grape juice. Lets look a little further.

"MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. -snip-

First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97." We see in the bold above the Supreme Court declaring Kawikita as a US citizen because of the 14th Amendment, but we also see they only declared him as a "native born citizen" who once took an allegiance to the U.S.

What is the logical conclusion? The Supreme Court does NOT see all 14th Amendment citizens as natural born when foreign citizens give birth to children in the United States.

Didn't El Gato tell you the Indiana case as ...what did he call it fluff?

It was described as "fluff" by a couple of lawyers each on different sides of the political spectrum. In other words, it is total BS.

That Indiana opinion is so bad I doubt it could hold up to the scrutiny of grade school children on quaaludes.

This court was asked and did say it because the answer is pretty straight forward. So you do what people ignorant of the law always do—sit on your bar stool and snarl nastily about judges and anyone else competent in the subject matter.

Oh nonsense, you spouting your clap trap. Your excuse doesn't address the Indiana Appeals Court for their faulty logic, and being deceptive. Fortunately, their silly opinion only applies to Indiana state.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Great link, thanks!

[verity]

Iffy analogy, Ron. The boys at Omaha beach were doing their duty.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Perhaps the LTC believes he's doing the same, he did take an oath to defend against foreign and domestic enemies.

I wonder what must be going through the minds of our guys who are risking their lives in foreign lands when they see what is happening back here?

I mean they swore to uphold the Constitution yet their CIC is back home literally shredding it as well as destroying their Country.

It's getting harder to determine which enemy is more dangerous.

[little jeremiah]

I have no military or legal expertise (duh...) but this question comes to mind.

If or as I think, when, 0bama is found to be ineligible to hold the presidency, couldn’t members of the US military be arrested by (fill in the blank enemy country, the UN, global court, etc) for murder or other crimes? They’d be on their own at that point.

I would assume that this would have something to do with Lt.Col. Lakin’s argument.

[bushpilot1]

A brief history of U.S. Citizenship Law:

http://usnationality.flippertv.com/

[TigersEye]

I thought that looked like a state naturalization document.

[Red Steel]

I vaguely remember that case from a year ago or so. I’ll give it another look see.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Most soldiers are not getting orders from the President. They are getting orders from their commanding officers. Most commanding officers already have standing orders.

I don’t believe it makes sense to argue that we couldn’t deploy a soldier without a direct command from the President.