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 ...
“...they oft-expressed frustration ...”
correction: their oft-expressed frustration.
The President was duly elected, certified, and sworn into office. The military doesn’t get to pick its Commander-in-Chief. Not surprising that Lakin will not be allowed to argue his political agenda, which is why he will lose and go to Leavenworth.
The political class, at the local, state, and national level have avoided this issue like the plague. They don’t want anyone or anything challenging their entitlement to hold power and to rule. That includes the Constitution which puts limits on their power. Republicans are going to stick with the Democrats on this one - its part of protecting their rice bowls.
The way to do this is to pass state laws to require candidates to certify their eligibility and provide proof in order to get on the ballot in the state. As it stands now, the parties make the certification and Nancy Pelosi signed the document that made Obama eligible. But, I’m sure that she checked his documents first.
” >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.” <
I believe that the Article 32 Investigating Officer, LTC Driscoll, has been “talked to.”
If so, then there’s a possibility of “undue command influence” in the prosecution of LTC Lakin’s Trial by Court-martial.
Also... “Derivation of authority?” What greater “derivation of authority” is there other than the Constitution of the United States?
By the Constitution, LTC Lakin has the responsibility to question the authority of Obama and in the same respect those officers appointed over him IF HE BELIEVES THAT ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL.
A Commissioned Officer’s FIRST responsibility is to the Constitution. Period.
It’s like getting accused (and hung) for murder, but being refused to inquire who was murdered and being able to defend yourself against the accusation. With the political climate now turning against Obummer, maybe as this trial progresses the powers that be will be delighted to use Lakin as the springboard to oust Obummer. One can “hope” that this “change” will happen.
This is a confession that he knows the President is not eligible.
Exactly --
Yep --
Your synopsis is probably right on. Sadly —
“Not surprising that Lakin will not be allowed to argue his political agenda”
It’s a legal agenda. Is Obama eligible by law (the constitution)?
The candidate SHALL qualify...he has not. He is a usurper on the face of it.
Those who were responsible for seeing to it that he qualified (congress, electoral college, Cheney, Pelosi, Democratic party, Secretaries of States, Obama’s false affidavit, etc.) have broken the law.
When laws are broken the courts are the place to go for redress. Lakin CANNOT legally follow orders from a usurper.
All systems failed in this case. All three branches of government failed. State governments failed (Hawaii and the Secretaries of States). We won’t even mention the lamestream media. And of course the conservative media failed too.
We have laws regarding illegal immigration they refuse to enforce them.
Those with a political agenda in this case are those protecting a usurper.
Politicians ignore laws and the Constitution routinely and they usually get away with it. The current makeup and function of the Federal Government far exceeds the powers allocated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Politicians don’t care and they have put judges in place who don’t care.
Until voters decide to care and take powers away from politicians, this will continue. The Obama eligibility issue is just the latest in a ever expanding erosion of the Constitution.
This knucklehead Lieutenant Colonel is not going to help us solve this problem, and he will pay a big price for tilting at the Obama windmill. You won’t see any politicians following him off the cliff.
They are not avoiding a Constitutional crisis, they are creating one.
If the federal government won’t do its job on illegal immigration protection, forcing a state (Arizona) to, then if Congress won’t do its job on eligibility checks for presidential candidates why shouldn’t someone else do so?
That is correct.
I should have said that they are covering up a Constitutional Crisis that they cannot afford to be made undeniably public.
I regret that I have lost patience with the many kind-hearted, sincere souls who have tried to explain to me how it is even remotely possible that a Citizen of the United States of America does not automatically have all the “standing” in the world to question the Constitutional qualifications of the alleged President.
If he asserts that Obama is Kenyan, and plays to the public with Michele Obamas video tapes describing Obama as a Kenyan from Kenya, it would make it much harder not to allow discovery.
This is politics. Public Pressure must be bought on the Prosecutor to allow truth via discovery into the arena. If not, lakin is toast.
He needs to have Obama publicly pressed to allow all info. A man is about to go to jail, and Obamas documents could free him. But Obama stands silent, refusing to allow the truth to see the light of day.
Once lakin is jailed, a new can of worms is then open. We will have a citizen in jail for questioning Obamas origins of citizenship, and a president refusing to show them.
Some may say “Bullcrap, hes in jail for disobeying orders”.
Well, I could say Rosa Parks was arrested for failing to obey the law. In fact, she was arrested for being black and sitting in the front of a bus.
Imagine hundreds of thousands of people marching in DC to free Mr. Lakin. This is what is next if he is put in jail.
Apparently neither does the Constitution even though all law is subordinate to it. I don't have a lot of faith in Driscoll's reasoning as can be demonstrated in the quote below.
"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.
So let's think about this for a minute. Lakin argues that his orders are unconstitutional and therefore are illegal. Driscoll then says that there is no discussion of what constitutes an illegal order and so all orders should be presumed lawful. Isn't that line of reasoning tantamount to saying that you must follow every order even if it is illegal? Under Driscoll's reasoning there is effectively no such thing as an illegal order because no one has ever discussed what constitutes one. (By the way isn't discussing what constitutes an illegal order the job of the court in this case).
Let's follow Driscoll's reasoning to its conclusion: what constitutes an illegal order should never be discussed, because the only way to discuss it in court is to disobey an order. If you disobey an order to challenge its validity in court, then the court can not allow you to defend yourself, because the court doesn't know what constitutes a legal order. This effectively makes all illegal orders unchallengable and consequently, all illegal orders must be presumed valid and can never be challenged in court because the court will never take a stand on what constitutes an illegal order. Under this reasoning, there is de facto no such thing as an illegal order. I guess that the powers that be want to make sure that no one ever gets a chance to define in court what constitutes an illegal order or people may actually be inclined to keep their oath by disobeying unlawful orders.
Have you all noticed that the usual Obot trolls have been missing from these threads lately.
Must be otherwise occupied with Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Other Assorted Deviates Month.
That, or they have become defeated in watching their false heroes incompetent handling of the oil crises.
ping
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.