[centurion316]

LTC Larkin’s argument is not going to be heard. What will be heard is evidence that he knowingly and willfully refused deployment to Afghanistan. I would listen closely to the evidence and vote on the basis of what I heard. I would never hear anything about President Obama’s eligibility, and so it would not be a factor.

As to that point, I believe that Mr. Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but since his complete vital records have not been made public, I can’t say for sure. Given that his father was a foreigner, even if he was born in Hawaii, he may not be eligible to be President. The legal opinions seem to vary on that point though most think, on the basis of language in the 14th Amendment that he is eligible.

[jamese777]

LTC Larkin’s argument is not going to be heard. What will be heard is evidence that he knowingly and willfully refused deployment to Afghanistan. I would listen closely to the evidence and vote on the basis of what I heard. I would never hear anything about President Obama’s eligibility, and so it would not be a factor.

As to that point, I believe that Mr. Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but since his complete vital records have not been made public, I can’t say for sure. Given that his father was a foreigner, even if he was born in Hawaii, he may not be eligible to be President. The legal opinions seem to vary on that point though most think, on the basis of language in the 14th Amendment that he is eligible.

---

Here’s what one federal judge who looked at the issues had to say:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009