Posted on 08/02/2010 5:29:53 AM PDT by captjanaway
Washington, D.C., August 2, 2010. The Army has now referred charges against LTC Terrence Lakin for a General Court Martial. This action triggered the appointment of a Military Judge to preside over the trial, which will likely be scheduled before October, and held in Washington, D.C. at Ft. McNair.
On August 6, 2010 at Ft. McNair in Washington, D.C., the court will convene for the purpose of Judge Lind taking Lakin’s plea to the charges which consist of “missing movement” and of refusing to obey orders. Today Lakin stated: “I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ‘not guilty’ to them because of my conviction that our Commander-in-Chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices. The truth matters. The Constitution matters. If President Obama is a natural born citizen then the American people deserve to see proof, and if he is not, then I believe the orders in this case were illegal.” If convicted, Lakin faces up to four years at hard labor in a federal penitentiary.
(Excerpt) Read more at safeguardourconstitution.com. ...
<>So where did this court of history meet? Where are the stenographer’s records? Who presided?<>
Here and here and here ...:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#LeahyResolution
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_07.html
And I note that you cannot rebut anything therein. Is it because the Indiana Footnote 14 Court footnote fourteened you??? LOLOL
Where in Wong Kim Ark does it say his US birth to 2 Chinese-citizen parents makes him a “natural born citizen?”
You might want to consult Footnote 14 before answering.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.Do tell, WTF does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling. Haha. Sure it's immaterial.
So, this brilliant "defining" decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they someone find Barry NBC?
You apparently consider yourself a Conservative, and yet you support, defend and hold in high praise an activist state court that can't even correctly name the actual Constitutional clause involved AND cite WKA as their reason for finding Barry NBC...even though WKA was found to be a "citizen" (and admitted by the Indiana state court).
I wonder if that state court citing Clause 4 (instead of Clause 5) is kinda like Chief Justice Roberts having to swear in the usurper...twice. An "escape" route perhaps?
My son was in the Army so I am somewhat familiar with the Soldier’s Creed, tho admittedly I personally never served. I also have a passing acquaintance with the U.S. Constitution and its requirements of presidential eligibility to serve as CinC.
For your edification, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Didn’t your OATH require you to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, even before its command to follow orders? Officers, such as Lakin, have a further burden, “to bear true faith and alliance” to that Constitution.
Perhaps Col. Lakin, who does have lengthy experience with the Soldiers Creed, has taken his oath too seriously.
My oath is to obey orders.
My oath is to do what I am told.
My oath is to kill the enemy.
My oath is to protect my fellow soldiers.
My oath is to survive.
My oath is an oath of alligience and fidelity.
My oath has nothing to do with all of this bullshit you people are talking about.
My oath is to my wife and my children.
My oath is to America.
My oath? You know nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing of my oath.
You had better stop now. Because now you are starting to make me upset.
I love you. May peace be on you and your son and your family always. OUT
He did not desert or go AWOL, the technical term is for what he did is "missing a movement". He never left military control, which desertion or AWOL would require.
The "why" of disobeying and order may indeed be relevant to the Court Martial. Illegal or unlawful orders must be disobeyed. That is his defense, and he must be allowed to present it.
His name should be “tired of conservatives”. He’s been a transparent leftist shill since his first day here.
Evidence is presented by both sides in a Court Martial trial. The UCMJ specifically states that the accused must be allowed to present his defense. The hitch is that the Military Judge, and not the Court, gets to decide if evidence is "relevant", before allowing it to be presented.
You are being a rhetorical coward. Or a lefty troll. “Out” my foot! Don’t pass yourself off as a soldier, or even a vet, unless you know what you have (allegedly) swore an oath TO:
“The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)”
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
And I predict that the judge will rule that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is not relevant and will proceed to trial. I’m rather amazed that there are people advising this guy that he has even a ghost of a chance.
He is not AWOL. He missed a movement. Not the same thing. AWOL requires absenting oneself from military "control". He never did that.
Not at all. If Bush had been AWOL, which he was not, and would not have been even if had not "made" the minimum number of required drills, and had been convicted thereof, he'd still have been eligible to the office of President.
However if BHO is not a natural born citizen, then he is not eligible and therefore is not and cannot ever have been President/CinC.
Thanks for the ping!
Sorry, that turns out to be wrong. You are still subject to the Constition and still enjoy it's protections. The regular laws are another matter, and there you are indeed subject to the UCMJ, which by the way is a "regular law", part of the US Code, just like all the other laws.
I've given the required yearly briefing on the subject, once, and read or heard the same information, many times.
The UCMJ does provide for, and actually requires, disobeying unlawful orders. It's especially incumbent upon officers to do so.
Remember also that officers do not swear to obey orders, as do enlisted members. Both swear to Support and Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and *domestic*.
The only way it will not "come up" is for the trial judge to deny it's admission. That in turn will generate an appeal to the next higher level court, although, IIRC such an appeal is automatic if the punishment involves an involuntary separation of an officer.
The courts do have the power to declare him ineligible. If he's ineligible, no one need obey his orders. No military, no civilian. He might himself put out on the street by the Secret Service. If he wasn't President, he couldn't even qualify for a clearance as White House gardener
Uncle Chip gets very testy when people don’t agree with him. He has found some court decisions about citizenship of which is is very fond. You are supposed to accept his interpretation of this and understand that they apply in the case of the President. He can’t seem to grasp that his legal opinions are never going to be heard at LTC Lakin’s Court Martial and will have no impact on his case. Uncle Chip thinks that some military judge is going order that Obama be removed from office and restore everything that is right in the world. I don’t think that any of that is going to happen, unfortunately for LTC Lakin.
And what is the mission?
A major part of it is to "..support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
LtCol. Larkin is putting that part of the mission first, and his own career and liberty second. He may be wrong, but that's what he is doing.
Where did you get this idea? You can remove a President in one of four ways: death (Lincoln, Kennedy, etc),resignation (Nixon), impeachment (None - Johnson and Clinton tried but found not guilty), and defeat in an election (G.H.W. Bush, Carter, others). Absent removal by one of these legal/natural means, the President remains in Office and retains all the powers of that Office. What court do you think has the power that you suggest?
That comment is completely out of line and you are out of control. The guy clearly knows plenty about soldiering. Real soldiers take their oaths quite seriously, especially the part about obeying the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them. Real soldiers understand that LTC Lakin is staging a political stunt. Meanwhile, there are soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan. LTC Lakin is a medical doctor whose skills are critically needed to treat wounded soldiers and preserve their lives. Instead of doing his duty, he has become a willing pawn for people pursuing a half baked scheme that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
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.