Posted on 09/02/2010 2:24:49 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the court-martial process for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's eligibility to be president to be evaluated.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence that will be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial for Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to those records.
SNIP
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the courtroom, disagreed.
She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president and anyway, it should be Congress that would call for impeachment of a sitting president.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“If the president isn’t a liar he won’t be embarrassed!”
So very obvious it needed to be reprinted. Although, I think the “embarassment” spoke of was that a mere LTC in the Army could force the Chief Executive to be transparent and produce documents. Olympus forbid that a mere mortal could force the god POTUS to do anything he doesn’t want to do. It appears that the “self evident truth that all men are created equal” doesn’t matter anymore. As Orwell said in “Animal Farm”, “some animals are more equal than others.”
The perhaps last bastion of honor is dong a very dishonorable thing in crucifying Lakin to protect the lying bastard in the Oval Office. Expedience meets honor, and these particular military legal eagles have chosen expediency. Despicable, they shame the uniform they wear.
Not by a long shot is this over or done with. Obama is going to get vetted whether he occupies the White House or after he leaves. The Obots and government statists don't seen to grasped it.
If a President-elect “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th the 20th Amendment doesn’t allow that person to exercise the presidential powers. The vice-president elect is to “act as president” until a “President shall have qualified.”
In order to “qualify” Obama has to show he meets the qualifications - age, citizenship, and residency. The Hawaii birth certificate has no legal value because it has been amended (for sure) and almost certainly was also late - 2 reasons that his Hawaii BC is worth as much legally as Monopoly money.
There is no way that Obama could qualify when the facts of his birth have never even been legally determined. It’s not a deal where Nancy Pelosi could look at his BC and voila! pronounce him eligible. Hawaii law requires the amended BC itself to be presented AS EVIDENCE to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative before that BC means anything more than a piece of toilet paper.
That has never happened. Obama made sure it couldn’t.
There is no question about whether Obama can have the presidential powers. He can’t. We know that. The only person who can act as Commander-in-Chief is Joe Biden. As long as Joe Biden has that Constitutional authority and somebody besides him tried using those powers, there is no way those orders could be lawful.
So we’re not talking about whether Congress can IMPEACH Obama. What applies right now is whether or not Obama has ever been Constitutionally able to exercise the presidential powers - regardless of whether he is impeached. And only SCOTUS has the power to interpret and enforce the US Constitution.
What needs to happen is the military needs to bring a case before SCOTUS so they can determine whether Obama can act as Commander-in-Chief under the terms of the 20th Amendment. That is the DUTY of the military, because they themselves have no authority to say of their own will whether Obama is or isn’t able to use the presidential powers.
The military is absolutely acting beyond their authority by deciding for themselves on this Constitutional issue. They are way out of line.
The judge sounds like a defense attorney for Obama. If the judge meant there was actually something in the record, how does the judge know opening evidence could be an embarrassment for the president? Does the judge know what is in them ? If so, how did the judge know ? Has the judge been having communications with the administration ? Isn't that a bit unethical ?
The Constitution specifically states that a President elect who “fails to qualify” before January 20th is FORBIDDEN from exercising the presidential powers - which includes acting as CINC.
We know that Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009 because even TO THIS DAY he has never allowed the only procedure which can cause his amended birth certificate to have any legal evidentiary value: presenting it as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and having them determine that it is legally probative.
Because that never happened, the best Hawaii has for Obama is the legal equivalent of Monopoly money.
Every act he has done as President is unconstitutional. The 20th Amendment only allows Joe Biden to “act as president” until a “President shall have qualified”.
And furthermore, the military does not have the authority to decide whether a President can act as CINC under the 20th Amendment; that can only be decided by the judicial system. For the military to decide on their own that Obama CAN act as CINC is overstepping their authority. They should have submitted the question to the courts when Lakin asked them to clarify whether or not the chain of command had been compromised. They poo-poohed the issue, knowing that only the courts could give them a legal answer.
The military is way, way out of line in their treatment of this issue. By not referring this to the judiciary to resolve the Constitutional issue - by assuming that the orders were lawful even though there are questions about the Constitutionality which could negate the lawfulness of the orders - the military is violating the separation of powers.
They admit they don’t have the power to remove Obama’s presidential powers; they need to admit that they also don’t have the power to GRANT him presidential powers. Only SCOTUS can ultimately decide how the 20th Amendment applies to this situation.
The 20th Amendment says that a President elect who “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th cannot act as President.
Obama doesn’t even have any legally-determined birth facts. How could he possibly have “qualified”?
The Constitution specifically denies the Presidential powers to a President elect who “fails to qualify” before Jan 20th.
Here’s a good starting place for you to get up to speed on the legal issues here.
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-summary-cnn-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
Colorado tanker, what does the 20th Amendment say about the ability of a President elect to act as Commander-in-Chief if he/she “fails to qualify” by Jan 20th?
Can such a person appoint a SecDef?
Can a war strategy such as a surge - a CONPLAN or OPLAN be implemented without either a Commander-in-Chief or SecDef involved? Can movement and deployments be authorized and coordinated amongst all the branches of the service without an OPLAN or CONPLAN?
If Nancy Pelosi decided she was going to act as CINC and implement a military strategy, say, in Iran.... would the lawfulness of the coordinated movement and deployment orders be Constitutionally compromised in any way? Why or why not?
Here’s a question I’ve been trying to answer. If Obama’s orders and acts can be ignored because he isn’t really the president, how can he be removed? How do you remove as president someone who isn’t really the president?
Legally removing him from office is beside the point.
The 20th Amendment prevents him from ever HAVING THE PRESIDENTIAL POWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
It was never Constittuionally possible for him to act as Commander in Chief because he “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th as required by the 20th Amendment. The guy to this day does not even have any legally-determined birth facts, since his BC is amended and has no more legal weight than Monopoly money.
Obama has been acting illegally ever since Jan 20th. The only person who can “act as President” right now - documentably - is Joe Biden.
Whether he is President or not (and there is some question about that), he cannot exercise the Presidential powers. That is clear from the 20th Amendment, now that the HDOH has confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is legally deficient because it’s been amended. It almost certainly is also late, which would also disqualify it from having any legal evidentiary value.
In a thread a while back I pointed out a case where the civilian courts threw out a court-martial conviction because the military denied the defendant the chance to defend himself against the ACTUAL CHARGES because of an “even if” argument (”Even if he was under the custody of somebody else, he still would be guilty of escaping.”)
Lind is using the “even if” argument here and there is no way it would stand up in an honest civilian court. Lind knows that. This is a kangaroo process geared toward violating Lakin’s due process rights so the conviction can be overturned in a civilian court without the military having to deal with whether or not they have a Constitutional Commander-in-Chief.
Everything about the legal reasoning is warped.
The claim that only Congress can remove a sitting president is sheer bullcrap, because the issue isn’t whether Obama is to be removed; it is whether he has ever at any point since Jan 20, 2009, been able to “act as President”, or whether Joe Biden is the only person the Constitution allows to do so. Whether Obama is sitting President is irrelevant to the issue of whether Obama has the Presidential powers.
And only the judiciary can interpret and apply the 20th Amendment. Congress has absolutely NO power in that.
It’s a total red herring.
This decision is total, absolute rot.
Most crimes, with the exception of those involving gross negligence, require a criminal intent.
For example, let's say you were outside and took a picture of the setting sun, and in the process, captured a picture of some new secret airplane. You thought it was a cool picture, so you posted it on the net.
The Russians saw the picture and therefore learned some huge military secret. Are you guilty of espionage or treason? No, because you had no intent to commit a crime.
In this case, the doctor was not displaying cowardice before the enemy, deserting, or anything like that. He is simply saying, “I have a real and deeply held conviction that Mr. Obama may not legally be the president, and therefore any orders issued by him would be illegal and I could be subject to being tried as a war criminal if I followed then.”
The doctor is not denying his refusal to follow the orders. He is saying such refusal is justified, and therefore, the court must consider and explore both the validity of such a contention and even if not valid, the doctor’ dependence on a belief in refusing to follow such orders until; such time as his concern is either put to rest, or proved valid.
Wow. You REALLY need to read at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-summary-cnn-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
I think we need to really hit hard on the “Obama won’t show his papers to our troops because he’s afraid of being embarrassed.”
What an absolute wimp, flipping off our soldiers because he’s all wee-weed up. Pansy. I fart in his general direction.
All the judges in these cases have engaged in unethical behavior and have given really, really bad arguments as well.
I actually wonder if they are purposely putting up red flags to tell the world they are making these decisions under duress.
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Your assertions are illogical.
The Constitution says that in order to be President, one has to be a natural born citizen. There is considerable evidence that fraud has been committed.
You’re saying the because he was elected, he’s untouchble.
No one is asking the judge to remove the scum from his CIC duties.
The judge could have (and should have) granted Lakin discovery. Springfield Reformer explained it much better than I can. Did you read his comment above?
Do you like 0thugga or something?
The Military Judge, Colonel Denise Lind in the Lakin court martial has Major General Karl R. Horst as her commanding officer. Major General Horst was promoted from Brigadier General to Major General by Barack Obama and he was appointed Commanding General for the Military District of the District of Columbia by Barack Obama.
I think what happens is SCOTUS rules on a 20th Amendment claim and decides that Joe Biden is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified”, as the 20th Amendment specifically states.
SCOTUS would have to decide whether someone who was never eligible to be President could actually become President. If he couldn’t actually become President, then there would be no need to impeach him.
If he could actually become President but was Constitutionally disabled from exercising the Presidential powers then Congress would have to impeach him to get rid of him.
SCOTUS would have to decide how the Constitution provides for the nation to get a President who qualifies in this case, that process would have to happen, and whoever finally qualified would then take over as President in Biden’s place.
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.