Your response doesn’t answer the basic question. Are you arguing that any soldier can, at any time, refuse to deploy, pending a court hearing on whether there is a reason why the President isn’t really the President?
You might respond “only when we know there is a real question”, but in the legal community, we don’t know what is a real question and what is not, until the court actually hears an argument and makes a ruling. At this point, the argument that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.A. is no more serious an argument than the argument that he isn’t really old enough, or that he didn’t live here long enough, or that he renounced his citizenship, or that he didn’t really win the election. All those arguments could be put forth, and a court would have to make some ruling.
My argument is that, in the meantime, All the evidence is that Obama IS the President. He was in the election, he was certified in 50 states, he received popular votes which gave him electoral votes. The electoral college voted, and certified Obama the winner. The results were sent to congress, and a duly elected congress ratified the election results. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ratified the elections by swearing in the President.
It’s not a “presumption of innocence”, it is a series of steps laid out in the constitution that have been met, and the judgment of both the legislative and judicial branches.
It is now on the opposition to show that these steps were taken in error. But we can’t have our soldiers refusing to obey the lawful orders of their commanding officers simply because they believe that, if a court case was held, Obama would be ruled ineligible for the Presidency.
Because if that were so, any soldier could do that at ANY time for ANY reason; For example, at the time we deployed to Afghanistan, nobody had really sued in court to force Bush to prove he was eligible for the Presidency.
I don't think going to court military or civilian will work.
The place to do this is at the states, pass legislation requiring candidates to be a “open book” before granting ballot access. Basically require him/her to lay out all the documents created by ones life. Birth certificate, school and college records, passport files, military service records, its the most important job in the land its not unreasonable for the person to properly vetted. If the candidate objects, too bad run for something else! The states control this process that's where the energy should be placed. If Zero truly has no problems then no one should object to this! Anyone want to bet the Demo-Rats will scream bloody murder over this!
I am not suggesting that any soldier get a free ride. If the court-martial finds that the soldier disobeyed a lawful order, then punishment is justified. The question is whether any court along the way will consider that the truth of the soldiers assertion is key to the decision to punish him.
If the Supreme Court of the United States will permit a soldier to languish in prison without examining the possibility that the soldier is correct, then the clause in the Constitution which mandates eligibility is worthless. Prior Supreme Courts have already decided that that is not so.
My recollection is that a certain Private New challenged the military's decision to require him to wear UN insignia on his U.S. military uniform. I think he lost at the Supreme Court level, meaning that the military can require our soldiers to wear French clown suits if that is what those in authority wish.
The Supreme Court could just as easily have ruled that the sovereignty of the U.S. cannot be surrendered by having our military appear to be loyal to anything other than the Constitution of the U.S. But Private New did get his day in court.