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?
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
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.
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?
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.
This is a confession that he knows the President is not eligible.
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?
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.
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.
ping