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 ...
You’re funny, you know that?
The ruling violates only your personal sense of entitlement that the law must conform to your personal beliefs. As far as it being overturned, I know nothing of the kind, nor does anyone else competent in the subject matter. You believe that because you're clueless and you desperately want to believe it, for whatever reason. As a lawyer, one meets potential clients like that, and the first thing one has to do is talk them down off the ledge. It's a pity no one did that for Lakin.
This cause is accomplishing nothing productive. Real conservatives are focused on an election the Republicans have a decent shot at doing well in due to the overwhelming effect of the economy. That, coupled with the disillusionment that always sets in among the controlling party's base after a while, is Obama's Achilles Heel, not the circumstances of his birth.
I seem to recall you were the guy who complained about his parent's treatment in a legal matter. If so, I was sympathetic at the time. I would still be sympathetic with your misfortune, but not so much you anymore.
She and mono should get a room.
Should those questions even influences a judge in making a legal decision? A judge's decision is supposed to be a sound, truthful, unbiased interpretation of the law and constitution based on the evidence before them. Are you suggesting, that judges should take political concerns into account when rendering decisions? Should judges refuse to uphold the Constitution because they are afraid of the political fall out? The answer to your questions is that the judges should give a true interpretation of the law as it pertains to the case before them regardless of political calculations, that is what they swore to do, and it is the promise to do this that is why they were allowed to hold their office in the first place. Knowing the Constitution is enforced and upheld by the courts even on the tough questions means a lot to the American people. Failing to do this undermines public confidence in the government.
Perhaps, I may pose your questions from a slightly different perspecitve. Ask yourself your questions from this angle: if Obama is not a Natural born Citizen, and the court ignores that fact, what will the effect be on Lakin and the country?
Obviously if Obama is in fact ineligible, then no matter what the court does, there will be serious consequences. However, to ignore addressing the question because one is afraid of the political fall out would mean that neither Lakin nor anyone else is truly protected by the law. In fact, the consequences of such a decision would show that the Constitution is an empty meaningless, facade, subject to the whims of those in power. You have no guarantees, no equal protection under the law, no protected rights. Indeed, if the government doesn't keep its end of the constitutional contract, then the people are absolved from their obligations to the government as well. The only law then would be that might makes right and to the victor goes the spoils. Like any promise, the Constitution only has meaning if it is kept.
No.
Should judges refuse to uphold the Constitution because they are afraid of the political fall out?
No.
Obviously if Obama is in fact ineligible, then no matter what the court does, there will be serious consequences.
Such as?
if Obama is not a Natural born Citizen, and the court ignores that fact, what will the effect be on Lakin and the country?
Yes, I suppose that is my question reworded.
Obviously if Obama is in fact ineligible, then no matter what the court does, there will be serious consequences.
What are they? What are they for Lakin and the country? Sheesh. It is what I asked in the first place.
On Lakin? No effect at all. On the country? That's a whole other kettle of fish.
Sounds like you're confusing motivation with intent. If I get drunk and run over a child on my way home, I still committed a crime and even though I didn't intend to kill anyone I'm still guilty of a crime. Likewise, if I'm unemployed and out of money and I rob a bank to buy food for my family then my motivation may be all the best but I still committed a crime. Lakin's motivation for refusing to obey the orders of his superior officers is irrelevant to the fact that he disobeyed them. Whatever his intent in performing this agregious breach of military discipline is secondary to the fact that breach it he did. Whatever his intent, whatever his motivation, he will be tried for the crime he committed and not for his reasons for comitting them
That is my opinion as well. This misguided man will go to prison for stupidity.
I agree with tired_old_conservative, you don’t know what you are talking about and instead of responding to views contrary to yours, you can only launch personal attacks. It doesn’t do much to bolster your argument.
This is not the first time that a member of the military has tried to use the military justice system for political purposes, and it won’t be the last. Those who disagree with the Birther Brigades have frequently pointed out examples. These have been summarily tossed aside because they destroy the Birther argument. The fact is that these attempts rarely, if ever, succeed and the courts, both civil and military have taken a very dim view of them.
I’ll give you another example, the case of Major Joyce Walmer, and eagerly await your reasoned response.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/52/52.F3d.851.93-3377.html
She was a student at the elite Command and General Staff College when her former lover walked into the CID office with a stack of love letters detailing their long homosexual relationship. Walmer was not court-martialed, but she was discharged from the service as required by Army regulations.
At her Board of Inquiry (BOI) she delivered to the President of the BOI a signed stipulation admitting to homosexual conduct while on active duty. I was the President of the BOI and here’s what the record states:
“During the BOI hearing, the president of the BOI determined on the record that Plaintiff had read and discussed the stipulation with counsel before signing it. Additionally, Plaintiff stated to the president that she knew she was admitting she had performed homosexual acts by signing the stipulation, and that the BOI would be required to recommend a discharge under AR 635-100 p 5-56. At the conclusion of the hearing, the president of the BOI found that Plaintiff had committed homosexual acts based upon the evidence presented, and recommended that the Army honorably discharge her.”
She had asked for a Board of Inquiry and then admitted to homosexual acts so that she could appeal the decision in Federal Court as a Fair Employment Practices Case. The Federal District Court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Army’s decision and denied her appeal. The Supreme Court denied writ and the judgment stood.
Walmer brought her suit on Constitutional grounds, citing the 5th and 14th Amendments. Included in the Courts decision was this:
“Further, we held that “even if heightened scrutiny were required in reviewing the Army Regulations because they restrict a fundamental right, the classification is valid in light of the Army’s demonstration of a compelling governmental interest in maintaining the discipline and morale of the armed forces.”
The courts have consistently held that the interests in maintaining good order and discipline outweigh certain rights of individual soldiers. They did it in this case, and will do so again when Lakin goes to appeal.
You can read the whole opinion at the link. Walmer’s action was a stunt encouraged by the homosexual community in order to try to overturn the Administration’s policy on homosexuals in the military. These stunts don’t work and COL Lind has delivered the death blow to Lakin’s attempt.
Well, those are really great questions. May it would have been better if the framers of the 20th Amendment had been a bit more clear about what they had in mind. Were they talking about age? Place of birth? Residency? Nowadays, prior service as president can serve to disqualify a person. How about a prior impeachment and removal from office? I don't know.
Outside of the electoral process and the counting of votes by the vice president, the Constitution does not create any procedure or forum for proving or disproving such things as age or place of birth and it would have been very easy for those responsible for the 20th Amendment to create such a forum or process. I think we're pretty much left with what they gave us.
By the way, even if a candidate were to provide what everyone would accept as a "birth certificate," how could we be sure that the fellow moving into the White House is actually the same person as the baby described in the "birth certificate." If you were forced to "prove" by witnesses with personal knowledge that a particular "birth certificate" described "your" birth, how would you go about doing that if the doctor and your parents had since died? How would the rest of us "know" that you hadn't just assumed somebody else's identity? Could a soldier who claimed "doubts" about all that refuse to obey your presidential orders until you figured out a way to satisfy his "doubts"? I don't know.
I wonder how many kings have looked at their "heirs" and wondered if their little princes were actually "their" sons. I don't know. A lot of little bastards probably became kings. And, as they got older and learned more about their parents, I wonder how many of them developed their own doubts about their legitimacy. Life goes on and all is not always perfect.
The only clear path that I can see to removing someone who is president is through the impeachment process. So long as the guy is president, he'll exercise presidential powers.
You might have had a point if Col. Lakin had taken this stand for his own benefit. He has taken this action for the greater good, which is something that encompasses a much larger realm than just the legal arguments. I know that this is something completely foreign to a fat headed lawyer. It should be an embarrassment to Mr. Obama that he is willing to let a good man suffer over something as simple as releasing his long form birth certificate. When persons other than thick headed lawyers hear about it, those with common sense understand that something is very wrong with the picture.
Real conservatives are focused on an election the Republicans have a decent shot at doing well in due to the overwhelming effect of the economy.
This issue is something that you spend a great deal of your time bloviating about every time that it comes up. So by your own standards you must not be a “Real conservative”. Numerous polls indicate that a vast majority of conservatives and a majority of independents have serious questions about Obama’s background. This is directly because of persons such as Col. Lakin who are willing to make sacrifices to keep hammering on this issue. If it keeps just one blood sucking attorney busy obsessively trying to downplay this issue that this is most definitely a productive endeavor.
It is very likely that the Republicans will make some big gains this November. You are as out of touch as Obama and the current Democrat majority if you think that it is only the economy that is responsible.
I seem to recall you were the guy who complained about his parent's treatment in a legal matter. If so, I was sympathetic at the time. I would still be sympathetic with your misfortune, but not so much you anymore.
I have come into contact with numerous lawyers over the years. Unfortunately, it seems rare to come across a lawyer who really gives a damn about anyone other than himself or herself. I believe that it was once an honorable profession.
Last winter my crew and I responded to a little old lady with dementia who had been wandering down the street in the middle of the night. It was below freezing and she had only a very light sweater covering a thin dress. Another lady, a concerned citizen found her and took her to the warm lobby of a cheap motel. I am certain she saved the woman's life. That second lady was a prostitute. She had more compassion and goodwill toward a stranger than any three lawyers that I have met.
I admit that when someone tells me they are a lawyer my gut feeling immediately is that they are most likely a no good blood sucker. I know this may not be fair to you, but painful experience has taught me this bias well. So sorry I don't actually care at all whether you are “sympathetic” towards me or not.
It is a little hard to believe that you do not have the mental capacity to even think about your own examples. If you got drunk and you were angy about something a kid in the neighborhood had done to your house and you ran over him intending to kill him... you would be serious of a much more serious crime... Can you understand that? I doubt it seriously, but most people with common sense can.
Seriously sorry about the serious typos in my last serious message. LOL!
Then I guess it's pointless to ask you to explain it.
Why Lakin did what he did is one thing. Whether or not he committed the crime is another. His motivation can be pure as the driven snow but at the end of the day if the prosecution proves he refused to obey the orders of his superior officers and he missed movement then he's going to be convicted.
It is because Obama is currently acting as CIC that the issue is critical. Any one who follows illigitimate orders and kills others because of those orders is acting immorally, without honor and contrary to the US constitution they have sworn to uphold. And everyone else in the chain of command who doesn't ask the same question is more culpable than the battlefield soldier.
Is there anyone in the US military who doesn't know the fraud allegations against Obama? Those who pass along orders from such a questionable source are duty-bound to raise the question and request an answer or proof of bona fides.
Yes, every service member who knows of evidence or allegations questioning the legitimacy of superior officers has that obligation. It's called honor and duty. Is it your belief that we will have a rash of these because Obama is a fraud,. What is your evidence for such a belief? Until you find some, you're just setting up a straw man.
As for 194, not my issue. Ask someone who gives a damn.
Try to be more respectfully of those who claim to be so intelligent.
I lost my tolerance and patience on this thread!
OK, I will try one more time... The punishment for missing a movement could vary greatly depending on the circumstances. The motivation of the defendant in a criminal trial is an important element. Using a real life situation similar to your own example: On my own fire department a firefighter who had been out drinking collided with a motorcyclist who later died. He stayed on scene and tried to help the victim. The firefighter had a history of drinking problems. He appeared remorseful to the court and the victim's friends and family. He was convicted, he lost his job, he received some type of “punishment”, but the only jail time he got was “time served”, which was measured in days not months or years.
If the motorcyclist was a black man who died of the exact same injuries... and the drunken firefighter had been at the bar with him making threats and racial slurs, and there was reason to believe that the act may have been intentional, the outcome would have been far different. We would have been looking at a hate crime, aggravated first degree murder and possibly the death penalty.
Often the motivation is the most important aspect in a criminal case. So yes I agree, Col. Lakin missed his movement. But the reasons he made the decision are important and they could have an impact on what the appropriate punishment should be. The ruling of the judge is wrong and has violated Col. Lakin’s right to a fair trial.
Don't worry though I know that you have been repeating the same argument over and over and over again and that there is virtually no way you will ever concede anything. But others here understand and that is enough for me.
It’s amazing how many people present technical arguments to tray dissuade those who would like to see some transparency, adherence to the constitution and politicians being held accountible.
It would help if you clean your diapers before posting.
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.