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 ...
Thank you for sharing your emotions.
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.
The Supreme Court has already rejected hearing any of eight different Obama eligibility appeals: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz. What makes you think that they will take on a ninth appeal?
No higher court has rejected Judge Carter’s opinion that impeachment or resignation are the only Constitutional remedies available for removing from office whoever it is who takes the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day.
As you already know my opinion is that the constitutional route to the removal of Barack Obama is: Step One, grand jury investigation, Step Two, subpoena of relevant documents including long form birth certificate; Step Three, indictment for forgery, election fraud, fraud, or altering government documents; Step Five A or Five B, impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors like Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton or resignation before impeachment like Richard Nixon.
Thank you for sharing your arrogant, prissy snarkiness and contempt for truth, honor and sacrifice.
And thus, tacit support for 0thugga.
If you actually believe what you have on your profile page, you would be actively trying to make sure conservatives get elected, and lying scum not elected, and not pi**ing on threads like these.
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.
Check my posting history and responses at this thread. As demonstrated with you, I ALWAYS let two or more insulting posts to me go by before I respond in kind. Then I let loose. Can't handle it? Tough.
I support the Constitution and have/will go toe to toe with anyone here in defense of it. Did you at least wiki Marbury v. Madison yet?
Lakin made a big mistake. I don't know who if anyone counseled him in this suit, but it was bad advice. No judge can order Hussein to produce a BC and all of your whining and moaning and wishing otherwise will not change that fact.
Try this:
Let’s say your wet dream comes true and a federal judge orders Hussein to produce his BC. Hussein then refuses.
Then what?
2. I have never used the term "birther"
3. I have never posted under another name and have never been banned.
4. In the Lakin case I am not on your side or Obama's side. I am on the Army side. Telling soldiers their officers' orders, especially deployment orders, are all "illegal" is wrong and if soldiers actually started believing it would be extremely disruptive and detrimental to the Army accomplishing it's challenging missions.
5. The attempt to have the Army examine Obama's credentials is even more deeply wrong. Enshrined in the Constitution is the principle of civilian control over the military. What do you think would happen if an Army court actually told the President he was not qualified and the Army would no longer obey his orders??? It would lead to a constitutional crisis with extremely serious consequences for the Army and the nation. The Army would be under attack from many sides. The Army could end up stripped of much of it's reputation and authority.
6. The Constitution provides a body to resolve Presidential qualifications and/or removal from office - the Congress sitting in impeachment proceedings. Depending on how expansive you view jurisdiction, the courts may also be able to resolve it. The Army, or the Navy for that matter, have no constitutional role in resolving this issue nor should they. We aren't a banana republic.
7. I don't post because I have anything against folks who want to see more proof of where Obama was born - I don't. I post because what you are advocating could do serious damage to the Army if it were actually pursued. And that is an institution I care deeply about.
I am trying to enlighten some of the dim light bulbs on this thread. I AM active in the my House, Senate and Governors race. And you? Did you know that many people cannot even name their House member?
I haven't read the judge's decision yet. In fact I don't think anyone on the forum has read it, though that hasn't stopped the posting of thousands of uniformed positions. However, once I do have a chance to read it then I will no doubt agree with her findings. So I don't think that there is any chance of it being overturned by a higher court.
...the other faux conservatives...
The fact that you make being a Birther a deciding factor in who is conservative and who is not says a lot about you. I take the positions I do in this matter because I think Lakin is wrong. That he is no different that other officers like Ehren Watada and Yolanda Huet-Vaughn who decided that they too could determine what orders they had to follow and what they did not. And that he deserves to be court martialed, convicted, cashiered, and most likely jailed for his actions. Obama and his eligibility aside, I think that is the only proper course of action and the good order and discipline demand nothing else.
Personally I find your use of the term “birther” by each of you to be very offensive.
I happen to think it's appropriate, more so than your 'faux conservatvive' label.
Second, if you really want to convince anyone of your position, try using reason and argument instead of the old standby "I say so, so it is so". We don't all accept your say-so as the be-all and end-all of logic, reason and evidence. There are many wise, learned and experienced freepers (whose names I will not enumerate so as not to bother doing courtesy pings) who disagree with you entirely, and they have given such details and evidence that many, including me, have been convinced.
You, OTOH, want everyone to "believe" you merely on your assertion which is backed up with nothing other than your simple assertion. And when others make good arguments, your learned response is "fluffery". Somehow that is not convincing enough.
Ahem - if discovery were permitted, the subpoena would go to the agencies or entities which hold the evidence, not 0thugga himself.
Keep thinking. What agencies? Then what?
I suggested that you and others review the concept of separation of powers as demonstrated in Marbury v. Madison. The answer is there. I cannot force someone to learn. I am at this thread to combat nitwittery. Why are you here? Why do you continue with the insults your deplore?
Complete malarkey. A court could order the state of Hawaii or Occidental College or any other party for them to produce records about Obama under discovery in order for the defendant to defend himself in court. What we have here is malfeasance by the courts to protect Obama at all costs.
And I see you are misinformed about about Separation of Powers in another post. The Legislative Branch legislates by making laws. The Executive Branch execute and enforce those laws. And the Executive Branch makes treaties, appoint judges, cabinet members, sends ambassadors to foreign contries, etcetera...
The Judiciary ensures that the those laws are followed and are to see if they are constitutional or not. If government officials have broken those laws, whether in Congress or in the Executive Branch of Government, to include this President, it is their sworn duty to uphold those laws and protect the US Constitution. You are confusing the doctrine of 'Separation of Powers' with the doctrine of 'Checks and Balances.' The subpoena power to order Obama records is in the purview of Judiciary and is in noway a violation or overstepping their authority. Checks and Balances are there to keep abuses from taking over our form of government which could be perpetrated by any of the three branches.
1. I am deeply sorry to have offended you by grouping you with tired_old_conservative, Jacquerie, Non-Sequitur, and Padams. I would be extremely upset by this also. It was a terrible mistake, Jamese777 should have been the other Obama appologist included in the list not you.
2. I would like some clarification however, you said, “I post because what you are advocating could do serious damage to the Army if it were actually pursued.” What exactly am I advocating. I believe that for the morale of our troops and the good of our country, Obama should come clean on this issue.
3. It’s a no brainer... we are not talking “Bananna Republic” crap here... You and your friends keep using every tactic in the book to obfuscate this very simple issue. Not just military men, but every citizen in the United States and for theat matter every person in the world whose life could be affected by the President of the United States should be able to verify that he is our lawful leader. To claim otherwise is just plain stupid. Oh sorry, sorry... I didn’t mean to group you with the others Obamabots again. Please don’t be offended.
When/if Hussein refuses to produce a BC then what?
Nobody can “order” Hussein to disclose anything. But the Constitution is clear that a President elect who “fails to qualify” cannot have the presidential powers.
The job of the judges is to interpret and enforce the Constitution.
How the heck did Obama - after he became the President elect - “qualify”? You tell me how he did it and when.
If he didn’t do it, the Constitution DEMANDS that Joe Biden “act as President until a President shall have qualified”.
Basic reading comprehension.
One allegation is that he was not born in Hawaii. Supposedly he and the state of Hawaii are in possession of his original form birth certificate. A judge could certainly order the release of those documents to answer the location of birth charge.
The second major allegation is that since his father was not a US citizen, Obama may not be a natural born citizen. The constant back and forth on this issue here for the last two years, has not and will not definitivly answer that question. It can only be answered by the USSC.
It is bewildering that those of us who want answers to these questions have to listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth here almost everyday because some people hold argument to be a higher value than seeking the truth.
My hat is off to members of the military who want to make sure that the orders they have ben given to kill others, are legitimate. The fact that superior officers can pass along those orders without answering that question is robotic and worse, immoral. I salute those with the courage to stand up and ask where are the emperor's clothes.
Then he produces one. Any birth certificate that Obama shows the court will be subject to verification against all his vital records. His records will be gone over with a fine tooth comb. If we find that he had a late birth certificate, per Hawaiian law, initiated by his Granny because she said she witnessed his birth somewhere else in Hawaii besides a hospital, or as some people think as late as 2006 that was somehow submitted by Obama, he would be in big trouble.
If Obama can produce a legit birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii, then he may be forced to argue that native born is equivalent to natural born citizen. And by showing his birth record that would show a foreigner for a father, where Obama received a foreign citizenship at birth, will be a big problem for him that the courts could take up against him.
In either of the two cases, Obama does not want to go there.
Nitwittery?
With no explanation of why your position is the correct one (whatever that position may be, is still unclear, other than that everyone except you and the 0thugga toadying suckups are “nitwits”) is correct, it seems the insulting came from you originally.
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.