Posted on 08/06/2010 1:17:40 PM PDT by cycle of discernment
‘The joint chiefs all the way down the line should take the same position.’
The joint chiefs are not in the line of command, they are advisors to the President and the SecDef. Military orders are issued by the SecDef (appoint by Bush) or by an officer under his command. In the US we have civilian control of the military.
here you go your type of justice, sit down shut up
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2566070/posts
Whoever is passing the orders on the war in which people are killed are acting withour assurance that the CIC is serving legitimately. If he is a fraud then they have culpability. This guy broke the chain of robotons by standing up and saying who are you.
While I can't say that I'm familiar with all, or even many of the birther cases, I don't believe a single case has survived a motion to dismiss, as such, there haven't been any other motions presented nor have their been any discussions about stipulated facts. These are things that happen after a judge has decided that there will be a trial.
"and under the UCMJ is he allowed to do so?"
If the military judge rules that the events surrounding Obama's birth are relevant to Lakin's court-martial, the yes, the prosecution could stipulate those facts.
From everything I've read though, Lakin wouldn't be interested in such a stipulation because he believes that Obama was not born in HI.
I'm sorry that you don't have the intellect to discern the difference between an order that is facially and plainly criminal, like gassing and burning 6 million Jews, and an order to deploy.
It speaks volumes about your ability to read, comprehend and reason, not mine.
“Fact: It is a simple matter to prove that one is a natural born citizen.
True, and Obama’s done it.”
You are in error sir!
The usurper, and his henchmen have proved NOTHING!
The orders originate from the Bush SecDef or his subordinates. Obama issues no orders.
You don't seem to understand that we have civilian control of the military. And, that civilian control is decided by a political process. The political process elected Barack Obama. The military has absolutely no role, right or in questioning that political process.
If the military judge rules that the events surrounding Obama's birth are relevant to Lakin's court-martial, the yes, the prosecution could stipulate those facts.
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.
Is that what you are saying?
How do you figure? Since when did being a natural born citizen guarantee that a person won't be an SOB?( curiosity)
OldDeckHand and curiosity,....Who wants to re-elect an SOB???? Huh? Or...Anyone else in the SOB's party?
Do you see the problem that Obama and the DemonRATs have here? This is fundamentally a public relations and public opinion problem for Obama.
Rush Limbaugh has TWICE this week brought up the Birthers. In both instances he was **very** supportive of the Birther's argument. Think about that. That is TWENTY MILLION (politically aware) **ADULT** LISTENERS!!
As 2012 approaches ( maybe even as 2010 nears) there is no possible way that the DemoncRATs can drive around Obama's eligibility. That great, big, stinky, hulk of road kill will block the road to voting booth, not only for Obama but other Dems as well.
Another silly statement, coming from a silly person. Not surprising.
If he had refused his brigade commander’s orders to deploy to Iran to fight the mullahs, would he be court-martialed for violating Article 92?
Why or why not?
Where in the 20th Amendment is the job of determining whether the President elect “failed to qualify” specifically given to Congress?
Quote the words to me.
In order to say it is a “political” question you have to show that. So show me. I see nothing about Congress.
And you are too self centered to realize it was so far off the wall to be an example to you obots who spin crap like that and call it good. You still trying to make your de facto officer crap stick to the wall? Thats about on par with the Nuremberg Defense, equally incorrect..
No, that's not exactly what I'm saying, but it's close.
We are talking about two separate questions - Question #1, Was Barack Obama born in HI, and....
Question #2 - Is Obama eligible to be POTUS even if he was born in HI?
I was in a disagreement about what Lakin is alleging with another poster. From a fair reading of Lakin's publicly available statements, it's clear Lakin is alleging "Question #1", and he wants to see Obama's birth certificate to prove his allegation.
If Lakin was alleging Question #2, then there would be no need to see Obama's birth certificate. Obama would stipulate to the foreign citizenship of his father, and that question would then be litigated.
The chances of the military judge finding relevance to Lakin's court-martial for either question one or two, are precisely 0.00%.
He wasn't charged for not deploying to Iran, he was charged with not deploying to Afghanistan. Your hypothetical has no relevance to Lakin's current predicament.
Lakin's contention is his superior's orders are not valid because Obama's not valid.
I wonder how many orders Lakin has issued since Obama was inaugurated. Did he expect the orders he issued to be followed by his subordinates? If Lakin is intellectually honest, then I guess not.
Hm?...So...Even though they would not be permitted to speak about it. A fistful of attorneys, LTC Lakin, and others would **KNOW** what was in those records.
So?...Since I am not an attorney, what is the penalty for tell the world what is, indeed, in those records? If the penalty is a slap on the wrist, how would the Obama machine keep all these people quiet? ( Gee! How many people can be found shot dead in their car like Lieutenant Quarles without it looking really suspicious?)
The CIA specializes in making terminations with extreme prejudice look like deaths from natural causes. If a termination looks suspicious, it means they did a poor job.
The same is true for placing “authentic” recreations of official documents in government files.
Sweetie, you still want to argue about something that has long been settled. Not a single birther case has survived MTD, and yet you take no notice of that.
In your world, you understand the Constitution, the case and statutory law better than ALL those other judges. I would be interested to hear why you think so highly of your legal (ahem) opinions? Why are you right, and EVERYONE else wrong?
This is why I find the hubris of birthers on these threads so entertaining. Everyone else is stupid, self-centered, and full of "spin", and yet the birthers haven't won a single case. Not one, nada, zip, zero, zilch, goose-egg.
What's going to happen when Lakin is convicted and sentenced? We will be treated to another year's worth of "he's going to win on appeal" musing by the birther crowd.
Maybe if you won just a single motion, just one, people might take you seriously. Until then, it's nothing more than the nutty "communist conspiracy" of fluoride in the water.
Who besides military personnel would have standing to question the Constitutionality of a war fought without an official declaration of war?
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.
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.
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 seems absolutely crazy to me that a person can sue a company for not posting a warning on the stepladder that juggling cows while standing on your head on the top rung of the ladder could be dangerous.... and yet NOBODY can sue to find out whether the President elect actually qualified by Jan 20th as required by the 20th Amendment, or to find out what limits the Constitution places on combat operations without a declaration of war.
Something is CLEARLY wrong with our way of measuring “standing”.
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.