Posted on 06/21/2010 12:15:29 PM PDT by cycle of discernment
Obama & Holder: “YOU have NO standing to ask any Questions!”
June 20, 2010
No matter the political agenda of any American citizen, one reality should send shivers down every American’s spine. The Obama administration has made it known that according to their form of “justice,” NO soldier or citizen has “legal standing” to question anything about Obama, his many corrupt friends, his anti-American policies or his full court press to destroy all things American.
Barack Hussein Obama remains a complete mystery. His birth, college, travel, passport and entire personal history remains under lock and key unlike any president before him. His policies have proven destructive to the US economy, US sovereignty and security as well as both states and individual rights.
The Obama administration is operating like a pure dictatorship at odds with the vast majority of American citizens and no matter what peaceful course of redress the people attempt, they have repeatedly been informed that they have “NO STANDING” to ask any questions.
Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin
LTC Lakin is not a private fresh out of boot camp that lost his nerve for the field of battle and refused to comply with deployment orders.
LTC Lakin’s numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forces Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon sixth award and the NATO service medal.He has served previously in Honduras, Bosnia, Korea, and Afghanistan.
His senior command described him “an extremely talented, highly knowledgeable senior Army clinician with significant field and consultant experience…”
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Is “legal standing” defined somewhere in law?
The banana republic junta has standing. No one else has.
FUBO
When is this country going to learn bastards, (Clinton and Obama) make LOUSY Leaders at ANY level.
I'm of the opinion that the only ones who can possibly force the president to release his vault copy of his birth certificate is Congress, as part of impeachment proceedings. Once he was sworn in, options dwindled to Pelosi land.
Now that Obambi has been in office for 1 1/2 years, it should be clear to everyone that he was not born nor educated in America. (57 States, etc.)
I believe that his degrees from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard are honorary degrees.
That is why he and his wife lost their licenses to practice law in ‘93, if in fact, he and Michelle ever passed the bar.
Obambi is a manufactured clown much like an actor who can read his lines.
Legal standing is more a doctrine than a specifically defined law somewhere. Standing means the law recognizes you have the legal right to come into court to litigate certain issues. The issue is whether this person has a right to take the action he has taken, given his professed reason for taking the action or refusing to take a particular action. (Weasley enough for you yet?)
Distill the matter into a broad principle: Does a member of the armed forces have the right to refuse a lawfully given order (and deployment is a lawfully given order) based on his personal belief the Commander-in-Chief is not lawfully occupying that office? Does the law give this soldier the right to force the CIC to produce proof of his citizenship before he is required to obey the deployment orders?
If you think this doctor is right, think for a moment of all those people who believed President Bush was illegally put in office by the Supreme Court. Should they have been able to refuse deployment orders and drag the administration into court everywhere and everyday?
The problem this soldier has is the Supreme Court has sworn this CIC in, giving him the authority to make lawful orders pursuant to his authority as CIC. You may be better off challenging the authority of the Supreme Court to swear in Obama in the first place. I am in sympathy with the good doctor and don’t doubt his sincerity and patriotism, but I don’t think he has the right to do what he’s trying to do here.
From http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
STANDING
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
_______
We are certainly aligned for “very significant future harm” by Obama continuing in office. But, I suppose since Obama was elected by a majority of voters, that would be difficult to prove. It looks like Congress is the only answer covering a ton of issues.
DO you have proof of disciplinary procedures against Barack and Michelle? I believe they let their licenses lapse, not that they were “lost” in the sense of being taken away. Maintaining a law license is a pretty onerous responsibility, what with bar association dues, continuing education requirements, expensive malpractice insurance premiums and pro bono obligations, among other matters. Many people have law degrees but, since they aren’t currently practicing law (e.g., holding public office, working for a corporation or other organization which does not offer legal services to the general public, retired), they let their licenses become inactive.
I believe those two have let their licenses become inactive.
No politician claiming to be “an agent of hope and change” then hires Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. It was fun to watch all the Hillary leftists (Rahm, Podesta, Greenburg, Carville, Begala) race over to flack for Obama. A Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat.
If I could stand face to face with Barack Hussein Obama, I would say to him, “You are in this job to serve me. I do not exist to serve you. You are answerable to the likes of me according to the oath you took when you became president. Here’s some brand new and radical reading for you: your assignment - Read Thomas Paine, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and some of Thomas Jefferson. These will be very good antidotes for your Socialism.
I agree, but it’s more than passingly strange that Obama has the will to put so many Americans through this - I cannot even imagine what the reason is given that citizenship is a requirement of office. One would think that if thousand if not millions of Americans want to know for sure, including soldiers that are being put in harms way by Obama that he or Congress would step up so that we can all move on.
King George thought that too regarding the Colonialists and look whhat happened.
*shudder* Congress is usually the answer when something is posed as: What is wrong with...? But yeah, in this case, because every state failed to do their job, because the Electoral College failed to do their job, it falls to Congress. I suppose Biden might have standing, as well as Pelosi on her own, but neither intend on committing Democrat suicide.
You give the TRAITOR too much credit.
I fully agree that, as I think Shakespeare wrote, “he doth protest too much.” He seems to be hiding something, whether that is his citizenship or something else embarrassing, such as the identity of his father, we don’t know. But what he is hiding may have nothing to do with citizenship. Suppose, for example, the dad was an American citizen instead of Barack H. Obama Sr. That tosses his name, his heritage, his books, everything. It does not disqualify him from being President but it thoroughly trashes his veracity and biography. Is it illegal to hide such information if it doesn’t affect your citizenship claim? Probably not, although a claim of fraud might be made, it would be difficult to prove damages.
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.