The officer involved has rejected Lakin’s request for witnesses and documents, for instance, based on the idea that Obama’s Constitutional ability to exercise the presidential powers (assigning Cabinet members such as SecDef, acting as CIC, etc) is irrelevant to the Constitutionality and thus lawfulness of the orders down the chain of command.
But bushpilot1 has shown us that there is long-standing precedent saying that the top commanders derive their authority from the Commander-in-Chief.
To not even ALLOW that argument to be made is to say that the case is already decided. AND it is decided AGAINST hundreds of years of historical precedent, apparently on the basis of the Michael New case, which turns everything before it around on its heels.
If one case can ignore and undo hundreds of years of precedent and the text of the Constitution, then the takeover of the military actually happened very quickly - in the course of one court case, decided by a handful of people.
The need for 5,000 people to take over the military is exaggerated. It takes one person in the right position to corrupt the whole thing, because then the hands of millions are literally all tied up.
I should be heading to church soon so I’ll make this quick.
The connection to the Michael New case made in the response to Lakin’s request for witnesses and documents, IIRC, is that the issue of Obama’s Constitutional ability to exercise the presidential powers to act as CIC is a POLITICAL question. A question is political, in judicial terms, if it has been specifically designated to another branch of government to resolve.
In the case of Michael New that is a fair argument to make.
In the case of Lt Col Lakin it can only be made if one points to exactly where in the Constitution the job of determining whether the President elect (already certified as the electoral winner by Congress) has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th.
I have challenged anybody to show me the words where that duty was given to anybody besides the judicial branch which is to decide all cases arising out of the Constitution or laws.
I challenge you to the same. Give me the words from the Constitution or - preferably - the 20th Amendment itself - which gives that job to somebody besides the judiciary.
The book Bushpilot1 has shown us talks about implied responsibilities and authority by virtue of the job description. It says that specific responsibilities don’t have to be spelled out - that they are in fact redundant when they are spelled out in addition to the general job description which applies. We have this idea that if the Constitution doesn’t say who determines whether a President is eligible, then nobody can do it. This document bushpilot1 has posted says that’s nuts. The job of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and Constitution and apply them to specific cases.
Nowhere has Congress or anybody else been given the authority to do just that, even though Congress has been given the authority to determine eligibility issues for itself. If they were to be given authority to judge eligibility for the executive branch, that is the place it would have been done, and it wasn’t. Something to do with the separation of powers and checks and balances, I think. The judiciary is the only body which can interpret what “natural born US citizen” means.