Before birther row, Lt. Col. Lakin racked up medals (WOW CNN lays it honestly for ONCE!)

http://www.cnn.com/ ^

[cycle of discernment]

Before birther row, Lt. Col. Lakin racked up medals as flight surgeon

By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN August 6, 2010 2:51 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is a poster soldier for the so-called birther movement, but for 17 years prior to his court-martial proceedings, the flight surgeon served around the globe, racking up a chest full of medals.

Military prosecutors allege that the Colorado native intentionally missed a plane in April after disobeying four lawful orders from superiors. Lakin has said he refused to deploy to Afghanistan until he sees proof that President Obama was born in the U.S.

In a YouTube explanation posted before he was charged, Lakin said he had no choice but the "distasteful one of inviting my own court-martial."

"If [Obama] is ineligible, then indeed, all orders are illegal because all orders have the origin with the commander in chief," he said.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice says the maximum punishment for both offenses -- missing his plane and disobeying lawful orders -- is a dishonorable discharge and up to two years in confinement. A guilty verdict could also result in forfeiture of his pay, which totals $7,959 a month, according to a charge sheet provided by a group sponsoring his defense.

[jamese777]

That response of yours, jamese77, made as much sense as spit on a San Antonio sidewalk at noon on August 1st.

---

I’m sorry that you couldn’t figure it out. Perhaps your mommy can help you to understand.

[butterdezillion]

Maybe you will answer my question.

If Lakin’s brigade commander had ordered him to deploy to Iran to fight the mullahs would it have been a lawful order?

Why or why not?

[Gene Eric]

>> I’m not sure what that portends.

They’re negotiating.

[tired_old_conservative]

“Which court decision is that?”

The November, 2009 Ankeny vs. Governore of Indiana case. Tells you what any court that ever addresses this question will say. People around here try to pretend that because they don't like what it says, it doesn't count.

I'd link it for you, but the last time I did that I got into a pointless argument with some guy who can't understand footnotes. But he's nonetheless convinced he has a better grasp of the argument than the judges who wrote it. That kind of silliness is pretty common around here.

“The whole world once knew that the world was flat? Did not questioning that “fact” make it, in actually, flat or was it still a globe despite what everyone “knew”?”

Poor analogy. Speculating about the shape of a world no one has traversed has a good excuse for being wrong, namely that it has no facts upon which to rely. Everyone involved in validating ballots and verifying the election results knew Obama had a non-citizen father, knew the requirements to be President, and didn't find it disqualifying.

[999replies]

Sad to see delusional crazies who can’t accept the president’s legitimacy leading a brave soldier astray.

Did you type that in your smoking jacket? And they say pretencious pricks don't hang out on FR.

[butterdezillion]

When is the 20th Amendment ever designated to political forces (i.e. Congress) to enforce?

This is a JUDICIAL issue, not a political one.

[butterdezillion]

There has never been a legal determination of Obama’s birth date, place, or parents. His amended BC requires a special procedure before the document even means ANYTHING legally.

How can Obama’s eligibility be legally proven to ANYBODY if he has no legally-determined birth facts?

You do acknowledge that legal proof - such as is required by the 20th Amendment - has to reach the legal standard for proof, right?

[butterdezillion]

IOW, there aren’t any words where the 20th Amendment gives the Congress the job of determining whether the President elect has “failed to qualify”.

It’s not a “political question”. It’s a judicial question.

I keep asking questions that should be a piece of cake for the “experts” but they keep coming back with their lectures about how smart they are as opposed to me.... and REFUSE to even address my questions.

Transparent. Very transparent.

[butterdezillion]

The SecDef at the time that Lakin’s orders were given was appointed by OBAMA.

The 20th Amendment says only Joe Biden could appoint a SecDef. We have no SecDef who fulfills the requirements of the US Constitution.

[mrsmith]

IMHO the Secretaries of State, electors and congress have put this fine officer in a terrible position by not doing their jobs.

The person with standing who should be in court refusing to ‘follow orders’ and basing it upon Obama’s illegitimacy is anyone affected by a law signed by Obama. A tax law, or any other that Obama has signed.
In other words- any of us.

Of course it is not lawful to obey an unlawful order from your immediate superior, or his immediate superior, etc... all the way up the command to the one who initiated the order.
But whether these specific orders originated, technically, from the president is doubtful.

[jamese777]

So let’s be clear on this; if a Military Judge rules that the events regarding Obama’s birth are relevant then the Prosecution can then stipulate the fact that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the US at the time of Obama’s birth is not relevant to the case.

---

I believe that Barack Obama stipulated that his father was not an American citizen when he wrote the book “Dreams From My Father” about his father’s birth and life in Kenya in 1995.

[butterdezillion]

Article 92 never says that the unlawfulness of the orders has to be because the order is FACIALLY unlawful. Article 92 says that an order is not lawful if it is CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION as well as if it is contrary to US law.

Orders that originate with an unconstitutional president, who appointed an unconstitutional SecDef who appointed an unconstitutional theater commander..... etc..... are DEFINITELY “contrary to the Constitution”.

[butterdezillion]

Once again, you refuse to address my question.

And it has EVERYTHING to do with Lakin’s case.

You’re saying Lakin had to obey ANYTHING non-criminal that his brigade commanders ordered him to do. I asked if that includes an order to deploy to Iran and fight the mullahs.

You refuse to answer.

There are some orders that are beyond the authority of Lakin’s brigade commander. You know that and I know that. So do the writers of Article 92 because in the “elements” they say that an order is not lawful if it is beyond the authority of the person giving the order.

Like an order to deploy to Iran to fight the mullahs would be beyond Lakin’s brigade commanders without the prerequisite directives or general orders from somebody who DID have the authority to order combat operations in Iran.

It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the issue of Lakin, because Lakin’s brigade commanders can no more command him to A-stan for combat operations ON HIS OWN than they can order him to Iran.

The lawfulness of those direct orders to Lakin ABSOLUTELY depend on whether the brigade commanders were given the authority from somebody authorized to make that call.

I hear it being said that the SecDef is the one who has that authority. The SecDef could authorize the line of command to send troops to Iran, for instance.

What if I appointed a SecDef and that SecDef sent our troops to war in Iran? Would that be a lawful order? Hell, no - because I’m a NOBODY. Only the person authorized by the Constitution to “act as President” can appoint a SecDef.

The 20th Amendment says that is Joe Biden.

Could Lakin’s brigade commander tell him to clean out the potties? Absolutely. Until the brigade commander told him to deploy to A-stan, which has to originate from a valid SecDef, the orders he received were lawful and he obeyed them.

[rolling_stone]

I believe that Barack Obama stipulated that his father was not an American citizen when he wrote the book “Dreams From My Father” about his father’s birth and life in Kenya in 1995.

Wrong again. Who did he stipulate the fact to? It is an admission.

[jamese777]

Who besides military personnel would have standing to question the Constitutionality of a war fought without an official declaration of war?

---

Congress. Congress can also cut off the funding for an unconstitutional war and stop it.

---

“If the system rules out anybody who COULD “petition the government for a redress of grievances” then it has indirectly abridged that right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Having one’s day in court IS petitioning the government for redress of grievances”. There is no guarantee that those grievances will be redressed however. The first amendment guarantees the right to petition, not the right to win.

---

“That’s why Roe v Wade was decided (albeit very badly) even though the issue was moot for Jane Roe by the time SCOTUS heard the case. There was nobody LEFT who had standing. The court said that because there never COULD be anybody left with standing because the appeals process takes longer than a pregnancy they would hear the case on behalf of those who would otherwise have no opportunity for due process.”

---

Legal apples and oranges. Roe v Wade has little to nothing to do with Obama eligibility. Just because plaintiffs with standing haven’t sued doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. I think that John McCain and/or the Republican National Committee on behalf of the McCain/Palin campaign would have standing to sue (DIRECT INJURY-IN-FACT) but they did not sue.
I also believe that US District Court Judge David O Carter is correct, once Obama assumed the office, lawsuits are not the proper venue, it is the responsibility of Congress to impeach an illegal president. What average citizens can do is demand the resignation of an ineligible president which is what happened to Richard Nixon. He resigned when he became an “unindicted co-conspirator” under the Watergate Grand Jury.

---

“IOW, if we don’t want our military asking the “political” questions, then we need to allow somebody else to have “standing” to ask those questions. If it’s already been decided that the Constitution doesn’t require a declaration of war before we go to war, then it should be simple for a lower court to simply say that.”

---

It would need to be someone at the top of the chain of command not a Lieutenant Colonel. Now if General Petraeus was the person refusing movement to Afghanistan... whew!

---

Something is CLEARLY wrong with our way of measuring standing.”

---

I disagree. It is the responsibility of plaintiffs’ attorneys to find and present the right clients who do have standing. it is unfortunate that none of the major conservtive constitutional law firms have chosen to get involved with this issue. They would have found and presented the right plaintifs.

[Brytani]

Let me run something by you.

Lakin has given numerous interviews where he discusses Obama’s dual citizenship, in fact Anderson Cooper from CNN interviewed Lakin where he touched on that very issue. Lakin also argues that Obama has never produced any documentation showing where he was born which seems to be what his team is concentrating on as a first line of defense.

Could the defense tactic be to first force Hawaii to produce their birth records for Obama; which not only answers the location of birth question but is a prerequisite to make the argument that Obama is not a NBC?

Obama has not produced any legal documentation proving his birth narrative. At the end of the day all “we” really have Obama’s word as to his place of birth and his parentage, specifically that BHO Sr. is Obama’s legal and biological father.

I may also be looking at this backwards but it seems if Lakin stipulates that BHO Sr is Obama’s father he validates a Hawaii birth. Stipulating a Hawaii birth validates BHO Sr. as father. Neither parentage or place of birth can stand alone when both come from an image uploaded to the internet.

Wouldn’t Lakin (or anyone else filing suit) not have to first establish the legal identify of Obama’s parents and their citizenship status before any eligibility argument could begin?

I can’t help but think Obama and his legal team(s) have fought tooth and nail to keep his birth certificate sealed not because of what it says but because its release would open the door to a Constitutional challenge.

[usmcobra]

Both questions can only be legally decided by the Original Birth certificate.

To date no court of law has ever seen his Original Birth certificate or even the COLB as a legal document, that’s why this case is important.

Obama can claim anything he wants in a book actually written by his buddy William Ayers but proving it in a court of law is a whole different matter.

[Non-Sequitur]

"If [Obama] is ineligible, then indeed, all orders are illegal because all orders have the origin with the commander in chief," he said.

I would assume that would include any and all orders that he himself has given?

[jamese777]

Article 92 never says that the unlawfulness of the orders has to be because the order is FACIALLY unlawful. Article 92 says that an order is not lawful if it is CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION as well as if it is contrary to US law.

Orders that originate with an unconstitutional president, who appointed an unconstitutional SecDef who appointed an unconstitutional theater commander..... etc..... are DEFINITELY “contrary to the Constitution”.

---

However there has been no ruling by any judicial or legislative body that Obama is illegal or ineligible. Such a ruling certainly won’t originate from an Article 32 Court Martial of a Lieutenant Colonel for refusing movement.

[jamese777]

Both questions can only be legally decided by the Original Birth certificate.

To date no court of law has ever seen his Original Birth certificate or even the COLB as a legal document, that’s why this case is important.

Obama can claim anything he wants in a book actually written by his buddy William Ayers but proving it in a court of law is a whole different matter.

---

The American system of jurisprudence doesn’t work that way. Obama doesn’t have to prove his eligibility. He is in the office and has been for over a year now. He was on the ballot in 50 states plus DC, he was elected with 69 million popular votes, he received a majority of the Electoral College votes, his Electoral College votes were certified by the Vice President without objection from any of the 535 members of Congress and he was sworn in as President by the Chief Justice.

Obama’s eligibilty opposition has to prove him to be ineligible and then convince Congress to impeach, convict and remove him or force his resignation. The other option is to keep working on influencing public opinion so that enough people vote against him on this issue in 2012.