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 ...
Those three officers derive their authority through the commander-in-chief. The fact that Hussein is NOT a Natural Born Citizen makes any and all orders given by those acting under his authority Constitutionally illegal.
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides the original source of command authority to the President as Commander-in-Chief.
So what you're saying then is that every single order given since January 20, 2009 by every single officer and NCO in every branch of service has been illegal? Including any and all orders given by Lakin himself?
You can keep repeating that mantra until you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides the original SOURCE of command authority to the President as Commander-in-Chief.
Yes.
Presuming he actually is ineligible, Pelosi, on behalf of the Democratic Party, provided false and fraudulent information to one or more states certifying the he was eligible.
That should be enough to get over "separation of powers", which would be nice if the courts actually applied it any time it wasn't convenient for them.
“If I’m out of work and I rob a bank to support my family, is that a justification for my crime? Should the jury consider me innocent just because I wanted to feed my family? Or should the court be concerned with the fact that a bank was robbed?”
Your argument has nothing to do with this at all! The three other officers were taking orders were ultimately taking orders from the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. And as far as the man stealing the bank, that is something he CHOSE to do. In this case, there is no option for Lakin. So if the man’s family was starving, and the only option in the entire world was to rob that bank... then, yes. Motive would most certainly come into play. Or better yet, if the man was being ORDERED to do so by a police officer, under threat of loss of freedom, then ‘reason’ would most certainly come into play.
The bank robber choosing to rob a bank as one of MANY options is not in any way the same as Lakin not having any choice at all is in no way the same thing. Try again.
And you can spout that until the cows come home and it won't make it any less irrelevant than it is now.
You are wrong.
my quick read on this here is that the SCOTUS stuff can be blocked by the military. AND SCOTUS can always duck the matter anyway....Pls tell me I've DONE A SLOPPY READ.
The issue here is not how Obama is to be removed. The question isn’t even whether he SHOULD be removed. The question is whether he has ever been able to act as Commander-in-Chief.
Whether or not the President elect becomes the President, he cannot have the Presidential powers if he has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th. That’s what the 20th Amendment says.
To even BE the President elect, in Constitutional terms, he would have to have been declared the winner of the electoral vote, since the Constitution recognizes no popular vote. So there is obviously something more that has to be done to “qualify” besides just winning the electoral vote - a qualification that might be completed only after Congress is done certifying the results of the electoral vote.
And the Vice President elect can qualify even if the President elect doesn’t. So it is something that applies to an individual, not just to a ticket.
This goes beyond what Congress is authorized to do. Congress has nothing to do with this. The only role Congress plays in any of this is initially counting the already-certified electoral votes from the states, and deciding a split vote. Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress any role in interpreting or applying the Constitutional requirements for the chief executive.
Article 1 Section 5 gives each House sovereignty over the “elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members” - but not for the Presidency. That is obviously because Congress is not authorized to interpret or apply the Constitution, which is a necessary part of deciding issues about the Presidency. The judiciary, OTOH, is specifically given the task of deciding all cases, in interpretation and in fact, that arise from the Constitution.
In order to call something a “political question” a judge has to show that the Constitution specifically gives the authority to decide the issue in question to a different branch of government. What I see is that the 20th Amendment raises an issue of a President elect “failing to qualify” after Congress has already done everything they are authorized to do with the electoral vote. Congress has already acted; they have no more authority in the issue. Who does?
Article II, Section 2 says the judiciary. There is no way this is a “political question”, and the judges know that full well.
As to whether Obama could have qualified - it’s not even about whether he has proven to the proper people that he qualified. The fact of the matter is that Obama HAS NO legally-determined birth facts. This is like somebody having absolutely no legal documentation of age, parentage, or birthplace - an alien from outer space, for instance. How could that person “qualify”? Or better yet, how could that person “fail to qualify”? How would someone know that he had failed to qualify?
Everything she is doing is setting up for the court-martial to be overturned in civilian court.
They are wasting everybody’s time in order to save face without having to address the issue raised.
Just like everything these morons have been doing to America.
Did I ever say that SCOTUS would have to have original jurisdiction? My presumption is that the case would be appealed up to the SCOTUS. Nothing is ultimately final until SCOTUS has ruled on it.
You are straining out gnats (that I never even mentioned) and swallowing the camel. The point of Article III, Section 2 is that it is the job of the JUDICIARY to decide cases arising from the Constitution, not the job of Congress. That is specifically stated in Article III, section 2.
And that annihilates every argument made that this is a “political question”. It does not meet the definition for a “political question” and every judge who has ruled on this knows that - according to the definitions I have found on every lawyer-type site I have seen.
They’re screwing with us all. Jerkwads.
As Nixon used to say....I AM THE PRESIDENT! And he was until he resigned. You can rant all you want. You can say Obama is PINO, but the unyielding fact is he is the sworn in Prez until removed by impeachment, physical impairment, resignation, death, does not run again or loses re election. You can hold your breath and turn blue in the face...it aint gonna matter. If I am clearly and cleanly out at home plate and the video tape shows it I am still safe if the umpire called me safe. Have you got it yet? I doubt it. Why dont you use your energy to make sure he does not get re elected?
“How could it be an embarrassment since we’re all told that the Long Form Birth Certificate matches the forged one run through graphics software that was first published on the internet?”
BINGO!
We’ve seen what information the long form certificate contains thanks to copies released for the Nordyke twins.
Would disclosing the name of the doctor who delivered Obama embarrass him? Huh, hardly.
Would disclosing the name of the hospital embarrass him?
Would his birth weight embarrass him?
The only information that could embarrass him would have to concern the information (or lack thereof) of who his parents were or when and where he was born.
Only information that goes straight to his natural born status could embarrass him.
If any of the information is different than his crappy, legally invalid, photoshopped, COLB posted online via “The Daily KOS” means fraud has been committed.
Embarrassing information that has nothing to do with his eligibility wouldn’t have caused Nancy Pelosi to submit two different eligibility forms.
Nancy submitting those two different eligibility forms is acknowledgment that he isn’t a natural born citizen. She knows it and he knows it.
You still dont get it. See post 153.
I read some of your comments way in the beginning, and then it quickly became clear that you and the other little cabal of circle jer**er 0thugga toady suckups were just doing a job, repeating the same lies, crap and so on, so I don’t bother.
Other than to see sometimes what the rational posters are replying to.
You admitted you’re paid and whatever your pay is, you’re not worth it. You boss is not getting a good deal.
Then why are you wasting your time on this thread?
Get out the door and get active!
You don't know a lot about criminal law do you Non-Sequiter? Intent is a key element in nearly all criminal cases. Should it be that way? Probably not, but it is a fact that it is. This ruling is merely another stall tactic. The judge in this case is already aware that on appeal the decision will be ruled to be incorrect and the entire matter will have to be done over. It has been explained in numerous other posts why this is incorrect so I won't rehash it.
Stalling is the number one judicial tactic to deny justice in this country. None of these cases are likely to be resolved before Obama is voted out of office. At that time there won't be rioting in the streets and large numbers of disenfranchised voters... He will be ruled to have been ineligible to have been president get a slap on the wrist and it will be an interesting historical footnote and not a constitutional crisis. But that is not necessarily the point. They are still a black cloud hanging over Obama’s head and they are more of a distraction to him than to us.
You and the other faux conservatives who manage to hijack nearly every one of these threads, and I am speaking specifically to tired_old_conservative, Jacquerie, colorado tanker, Non-Sequitur, Padams, should try to keep that in mind. As you know Obama even made a slip on national television the other day... when asked about why so many people think he is a Muslim he made a statement about his birth certificate which had nothing to do with what he was asked. The efforts of Col. Lakin and others are keeping this in the spotlight and keeping Obama off balance.
Despite your short sighted judgment... this is a productive endeavor. A vast majority of conservatives have questions about why Obama is keeping his records hidden. You have to go all the way back to Chester Arthur to find another president who has mysterious circumstances about his birth. You five are the ones who waste the most time on Free Republic posting on this issue. Many of your posts are extremely derogatory towards other Freepers. Some of them so much so, that by all rights each of you should probably have been banned. (Judging from your writing styles I am fairly certain that some of you have used other monikers in the past that have been banned.)
Personally I find your use of the term “birther” by each of you to be very offensive. The president should release his records to instill confidence in both civilians and military personnel. Calling someone who believes that a “birther” is just plain obnoxious.
The judge has no power to order Hussein to produce a BC. It is as simple as that.
LTC Lakin exercised very poor judgement. Only Congress can boot Hussein from office, not a military member trying to beat his disobeyance of a direct order rap.
It is one thing for a junior service member to disobey a direct order. It is quite another for a senior officer. His failure to deploy with his unit is a horrible example. It would be service-wide detrimental to morale if he gets a slap on the wrist while an E-3 would likely get a less than honorable discharge.
Given only what has appeared in the press, I would nail this guy for the maximum sentence allowed. I feel very sorry for his family members, the futures of whom the LTC royally screwed up.
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.