|
Now, tell me the clause in the Constitution giving the LTC authority to determine eligibility. Easy.
|
Posted on 04/13/2010 8:19:14 AM PDT by Man50D
Washington, D.C., April 13, 2010. Army doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin yesterday met with his brigade commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, who proceeded to read LTC Lakin his Miranda rights, and who informed LTC Lakin he had the “right to remain silent” because LTC Lakin is about to be charged with serious crimes. Col. Roberts was at age 19 awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the only recipient of the nation’s highest honor currently on active duty in the Army.
LTC Lakin had previously been ordered in writing to report yesterday to Ft. Campbell, KY and then on to deploy for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Lakin refused to obey these orders and instead came to work yesterday morning at the Pentagon. Late yesterday afternoon he was confronted by his brigade commander.
Before the meeting was over, LTC Lakin’s Pentagon Access Pass had been revoked, and his laptop computer was set to be confiscated.
The message to LTC Lakin is clear; through official channels, he was informed yesterday that he will shortly be court-martialled for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor.
Lakin has announced in a YouTube video that has now been viewed more than 110,000 times that he considers it his duty to refuse to obey orders that would be illegal if President Obama is ineligible to hold office.
Meanwhile, cries mount for proof of that eligibility, but nothing has been forthcoming. The Obama campaign at one point released a copy of computer-generated abstract of information purportedly in Hawaii's records system, but the source of this information is unclear and need not have been a birth certificate issued contemporaneously and signed by the doctor who attended the birth. Even the document released was only a copy, and the version printed in the Los Angeles Times on June 16, 2008 is on a form only in use since late 2001. Even as it is, the document contains a warning that it is merely “prima facie”--threshold, rebuttable and thus inconclusive --evidence of birth, and the copy the Times printed mysteriously has the certificate number blacked out, thereby rendering the document unusable according to language on the bottom.
Given the seriousness of the offenses with which LTC Lakin is about to be charged, the American Patriot Foundation today renewed its plea for donations to its legal defense fund for LTC Lakin. Details are available at APF's website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com
It’s been posted on this forum dozens of times — go look for it — if you really want to know.
“Lt Col Lakin took an Oath:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” ‘
That is not the oath administered to officers.
However, the defense can argue the illegitimacy of the entire chain of command. In that case they will need to be able to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution will have access to the defense witness list AND any evidentiary documentation in that regard. The best outcome Lakin can hope for is the defense prevail on what essentially would amount to jury nullification, i.e., illegitimacy of the very charges themselves.
Nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, the burdon of proof for such defense is entirely Lakin's. In Lakin's upcoming trial the President is not on trial, nor is a defendant (and as such is under no obligation to defend himself or otherwise provide proof of eligibility to hold the office of POTUS).
Should Lakin prevail with the defense of illegitimate chain of command (predicated on the unconstitutionality of the Commander in Chief), that's a completely different ball of worms. What recourse Lakin would have againt the chain of command in part (or whole) is unknown to me, but there'd be lawsuits winding their way through the court system for years (if not decades). Should that turn out to be the case, I believe that Obama would be gone within a month of Lakin's acquital. And that, without any doubt, would be after a firestorm of public outrage.
However, all that is pure speculation and any sort of outcome in Lakin's favor is utterly dependent upon the unassailability and unimpeachable evidence Lakin already possesses to support his contention of Obama being unfit to serve as Commander in Chief.
You cannot ASSUME Obama is ineligible, and then use that as proof.
If you have PROOF, this whole discussion will change. Then Obama could be found guilty of fraud, and Congress could remove him.
Your proof?
Oh...you don’t have any. You want to use the courts to find some.
Doesn’t work that way. Obama is innocent until proven guilty.
|
Now, tell me the clause in the Constitution giving the LTC authority to determine eligibility. Easy.
|
"Evidence" and "Evidence that will stand up in court" are two different things.
I don't think Lakin is going to get very far with Lucas Smith's bogus birth certificate.
Because Congress is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to remove the President should he be found ineligible. And the only court Congress has delegated that power to is the District Court of the District of Columbia, and such delegation of power is strictly limited to actions governed by the federal quo warranto statute.
If we are going to challenge eligibility to protect the Constitution, then we certainly cannot do an end around the separation of powers. I have recognized this from the outset and that's why I tried to have the eligibility issue litigated prior to election day and then again prior to the electoral college meeting. After the electoral college met and cast its votes for Obama, he went from being an ordinary candidate to being the President-elect.
That metamorphosis has important Constitutional consequences which cannot be ignored. The Constitution provides that once we have a President-elect, the eligibility of that person can be challenged by Congress. The political question doctrine kicks in at that point and the ability of any other branch to challenge for POTUS eligibility is probably nullified. And once the President-elect is sworn in and assumes office, the Constitutional separation of powers certainly controls the issue. Recall, Congress didn't challenge Obama's eligibility before he was sworn in, so those provisions are now moot. And once a person is sworn in as President, the Constitution then provides specific means for removing the President from office, none of which grant such power to the Judicial Branch. Now please consider the following two points:
1. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President.
Those who are currently petitioning the Judicial branch to challenge Presidential eligibility are seeking to subvert the Constitution. They will argue Obama isn't legally President and so therefore the Constitutional separation of powers can be ignored. Should a court ever accept that theory, you will have the recipe for civil war, and you will be doing more damage to the nation than you can even imagine. Protest all you like, but the US Government recognizes his authority.
Furthermore, United States Courts all the way up to SCOTUS have refused to get involved, and this was the case before Obama was sworn in when the Judicial Branch actually did have the power to adjudicate the eligibility issue. They punted. Fact.
Now that Obama has taken the office of President and is officially recognized as President, no court is going to suddenly take a leap around the separation of powers by agreeing the Constitution doesn't apply to Obama as President. That will never happen.
Let that sink in because it's true.
2. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.
Some who support Obama's eligibility will seek to subvert the Constitution by arguing that the Constitution states that the sole remedy for removing the President is impeachment. Nowhere in the Document does it say that. Those who believe it must "imply" or "assume" that is the case. But the Constitution does not state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President. The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President "shall" be removed upon conviction, but it does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removal. You will hear people say that it does say that in the days ahead. It is a lie.
I have uncovered a plethora of evidence - within and without the Constitution - which I strongly believe proves that the framers provided Congress with the power to remove a President who is found to be ineligible. This makes sense because not every person who is found to be ineligible is guilty of a crime.
http://www.w3f.com/patriots/warranto.html
One of your best essays NBF. :-)
Once again you post without knowing what we or you are talking about. Par for the course.
Article 87...there is no doubt he missed his deployment...the question of why he missed his deployment doesn't matter....now the Article 133.....that's where all the fun is going to be had....
“The defense case is not following the orders based on the CIC not being legitmate. “
The defense case is that the member wants to find out if the CINC is legitimate, after many elected officials have certified him.
It doesn’t work that way. Since everyone involved in certifying the election says Obama is eligible and legitimately elected, it will be up to the defendant to show his doubts have validity.
If a killer says God made him do it, it is up to the defendant to show it was really God talking to him. It is not up to the prosecution to show that God wasn’t talking to him...
This is one of those too rare debates that will have a clear cut outcome. One of us will be proved right and one of us proved wrong at the end of the trial.
See ya when it's over.
|
If you have PROOF, this whole discussion will change. What proof do YOU have? Ah, let me guess ... The "proof" NEVER to have appeared in a Court Room or elsewhere, except for the offices of FactCheck, a printout or computer monitor.
|
That is pretty good. Do you have a link for the source?
“Maybe I am naive about the innerworkings of the military, but this seems like it has the potential to snowball downhill quickly on Obama.”
It depends on the spin. Since nobody in the MSM takes the birther issue seriously, and neither do most conservative pundits, such as BOR, Beck, Coulter, etc., there seems to be no place for any negative spin to come from. Some blogsites and a few right-wing type radio hosts will come out in support of Lakin, but that will probably engender more reaction from the pro-Obama folks, than extra support for the birthers.
Plus, this is an election year and as we get closer to November, I predict birthers will come under more attacks from the GOP, the Tea Party, and conservatives all who will be trying to distance themselves from the movement.
As a result, the Lakin thing will probably work out to Obama’s benefit.
parsy, who asks why did the wolf chase the rabbit?
This may be tough for you to understand, but it is true: Obama’s father being Kenyan (or British) doesn’t make Obama ineligible.
Every person certifying him for the ballot KNEW about Obama’s father. The public knew. The Electoral College knew. Every member of Congress knew. The Supreme Court knew. All before Obama took office.
None raised an objection, so we must conclude that none of those believe Obama’s Dad being from Kenya stopped Obama from being a natural born citizen.
All the state officials, the general public, the Electoral College, Congress and the Supreme Court disagree with your interpretation of ‘natural born’. EVERYONE!
You don’t have to like it, but it is over. Obama’s Dad could have been from Mars. Doesn’t matter. Obama, if born in the US, is a natural born citizen according to everyone who has a say. You do not. Neither does Lakin.
Oh...you don’t have any. You want to use the courts to find some.
The coward and lying Obama won't voluntarily prove that he is eligible.
However, there is plenty of contradicting evidence to the Obama official story line if people would honesty looked at the evidence, something that you deny.
Doesn’t work that way. Obama is innocent until proven guilty.
Actually, Obama is highly likely to face multiple states and their laws for him to prove that he is eligible to hold office before they put his happy @ss on the next presidential state ballots in 2012. I suspect Obozo will not run when faced with possibility of revealing his perfidy.
If it gets to the Supreme Court, I wonder if Sotomayor will have to recuse herself since if zero is found ineligible, she is out of a job.
Obama and any other elected official is covered under the “de facto officer doctrine” established by US Supreme Court precedent from 1898.
Article 2 Section 1 requiring natural born citizenship to be President trumps any other law.
Why do you think that 7 Obama eligibility cases at the US Supreme Court have already been rejected?
Additionally, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen under Article 2, Section 1 in the case of Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels which challenged Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s electoral votes on the grounds that both of his parents were not natural born citizens. Just last week the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in Ankeny, so it stands.
\http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_4da2bd4c-62b3-556f-a97c-8c3009013129.html
Thus far about 65 legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility have been turned away.
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.
