Posted on 06/03/2010 11:55:59 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
An Army "investigating officer" has banished evidence about the controversy over President Obama's eligibility – or lack thereof – to be commander-in-chief from a pending hearing for a career military doctor who announced he is refusing orders until Obama documents his constitutional status.
"In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president's credentials on trial," wrote Daniel J. Driscoll in a memorandum determining what evidence the defense for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin will be allowed to explore at next week's hearing.
"It is my opinion the discovery items pertaining to the president's credentials are not relevant to the proof of any element of the charges and specifications set forth in the charge sheet," he continued. "Consequently I will not examine the documents or witnesses pertinent to the president or his credentials to hold office."
The ruling came prior to a scheduled Article 32 hearing for Lakin, who posted a video inviting his own court hearing because of the status of the president and questions over whether his eligibility means orders given under his control would be invalid.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
While Driscoll cited "Rule for Courts-Martial 405" which allows "the production of witnesses 'whose testimony would be relevant…'" he said questions about Obama's eligibility – which could bear on the validity of military orders – will be ignored.
Driscoll then blamed the defense for not giving him what he wanted.
"I expressly instructed '[y]our submissions, if any, on the subject of lawfulness of orders, derivation of authority, political questions and the like should be sufficiently scholarly to allow me to make an informed determination of relevance of the requested items to the truth of the specifications and charges at issue," Driscoll wrote.
"The defense submitted a memorandum outlining the concept of chain of command, showing that the president is at the top of the chain, showing that the Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen and stating that soldiers must disobey 'illegal orders,'" Driscoll continued. "There is no scholarly discussion of what constitutes an illegal order or under what circumstances such an order can be disobeyed or must be disobeyed."
Instead, he said, the "law of lawfulness of orders" should prevail.
SNIP
Driscoll declined to respond to a WND request to comment on his ruling.
But Lakin said the result "makes it impossible for me to have a fair hearing."
"I cannot even raise the issue of the president's eligibility, on the grounds that my position has 'no basis in law,'" he said.
“Lakin’s advisers, however, told WND he will have an opportunity to raise the question again later during a court-martial process, once the Article 32 hearing is over.”
It should be “sufficiently scholarly” for the defense to point out that an officer’s oath is to the Constitution, not the Chain of Command.
The Chain of Command holds its authority only when in compliance with the Constitution. Any variance from that standard sets the Chain of Command as a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
It is therefore incumbent upon the officer to DISobey any orders issued therefrom.
Discovery of compliance with the Constitution by the Chain of Command is not ~an~ issue, it’s the ONLY issue.
The sheer terror every legal platform has evidenced at the prospect of investigating this pretender’s status, is baffling.
What are courts for if not addressing something like this? Is this not a matter worthy of an effort to clear the air once and for all?
It doesn’t mean the court would remove Obama. It would only mean that the truth would then have to be addressed by the only legal bodies that could remove him.
This member of the military has every right to challenge this CIC. To deny a honest investigation is to deny every citizen access to the full truth.
We are being lied to. Why? Why is it so damned important to cover up for this eight year old pretender?
Larkin renewed the debate over Obama’s eligibility, IMO. I hope he gets a fair hearing but I think he has already accomplished a great deal.
“In my view”, “in MY Opinion”..
I guess FACTS and EVIDENCE no longer have a place in the American Justice System, eh?
Isn’t Obamunism wonderful?
if this is the Army’s final word on the situation -then we stop and think about how deep the cover-up of the situation really is.
looks to me like the Army branch of the armed forces has taken a long cool dip in the rising of the oceans
if this is the Army’s final word on the situation -then we stop and think about how deep the cover-up of the situation really is.
looks to me like the Army branch of the armed forces has taken a long cool dip in the rising of the oceans and OUR COUNTRY HAS NOW BEEN COMPROMISED at one the higher levels outside the WH
...”The sheer terror every legal platform has evidenced at the prospect of investigating this pretender’s status, is baffling.
What are courts for if not addressing something like this? Is this not a matter worthy of an effort to clear the air once and for all?
It doesn’t mean the court would remove Obama. It would only mean that the truth would then have to be addressed by the only legal bodies that could remove him.
This member of the military has every right to challenge this CIC. To deny a honest investigation is to deny every citizen access to the full truth.
We are being lied to. Why? Why is it so damned important to cover up for this eight year old pretender?”...
You ask great questions but your thoughts are way too deep, knowlegeable, sophisticated, rational and SANE to be heeded in the 21 Century in America. Reason is out, anti-reason is in. And, that will prove to be tragic for all..
yet another “you do not have standing” response
in other words, how dare you question der leader
of course, not being eligible for office would make any order he gives unlawful... and thereby not protected under geneva conventions when you are acting on behalf of a nation. at that point, you’re basically a rogue agent killing people on the whim of a nobody... and the UN security council could declare your ‘gang/tribe/cult’ a terrorist organization and issue orders your units must be destroyed at once.
strangely enough... as i typed it... it almost seemed too real
you misunderstand. it’s not terror... it’s being complicate.
why do you think liberals have tried so hard over that last 40 years to make sure THEIR people are on the benches?
Well Driscoll, if the guy who occupies presidential office is not constitutionally qualified, he would not be able to give lawful orders as Commander in Chief, therefore, his orders that flow from that office are unconstitutional.
It's called syllogism. Easy logical deduction that many apparently lack this mental skill.
No other president R or D has received the level of protection given this man. Why? Every thing I can think of goes into tin foil territory. No rational reason for this. This is why people don’t want to belive it because there is no rational reason. But there it is.
there might still be enuff time to make the request “sufficiently scholarly”
The armed forces report to the President, not Congress, not the voters. And that whole “defend the Constitution” thing gets sooooo old, don’t you think?
What part of this is confusing?
Is this man saying "Case Dismissed," because of lack of evidence? Or, like the media lap dogs, is he personally declaring that the president is eligible because "everybody" says so?
". . . posted a video inviting his own court hearing because of the status of the president . . ."
That's the fundamental question: do the orders come from an anti-American thug who is still legally the 'president' or just from an anti-American usurper who lacks the legal authority to order real American soldiers around?
Has this sort of defense ever worked (or been allowed) before?
zerO’s ineligibility echoes all the way through the entire Federal structure. For instance: what is the legality of all of his appointments to the Federal bench? How many rulings would have to be thrown out/reheard if he is declared illegitimate? How many appointees would have to be dismissed? Apply that to every aspect of the bureaucracy and we have actual anarchy, instead of virtual dictatorship.
Everyone in a position of authority dependent upon the Federal system is in danger. If there is a popular revolt, they will all close ranks to authorize use of force.
A few weeks ago, we spent some time with some retired military folks. FWIW, the consensus was that in the event of a revolt, 45% of the enlisted troops would walk away with their arms. The thought expressed was that perhaps 10% of the High Command in the administration would refuse to follow orders and they could easily be replaced. Some went so far as to express anxiety that their own training would put them on *red lists* as *domestic terrorists*.
Yes, some of these folks could be considered tin-foilers, but consider the implications if they are correct, or even if they are only partially correct.
I am 67. Never in my life before this administration have I heard elected officials speak of *ruling*, as opposed to *governing* or *serving*. And I have noticed that they only use the term *govern* in a negative sense, as in :"America cannot be governed." Add to that they oft-expressed frustration of the progressives that they do not have a gangsta cowboy at the helm and how many of them fervently and publicly are wishing for a dictator.
Big boot; many necks.
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.