Judge to Lakin: Find another defense

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.

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.

Is not your position objectively supportive of him regardless of your personal motivations?

My position is objectively supportive of the Army, and the military I served for close to 30 years. And against those who would disparage it.

As to the question of Lakin’s judgment, there is case law to suggest that a commissioned officer has a unique responsibility to use independent judgment in deciding whether to obey presidential orders.

What about the orders of his brigade commander and officers appointed over him? What does case law say about that?

That’s a powerful indicator that the “blind obedience” paradigm being offered up by you and your kindred spirits is neither good law nor good morals nor good discipline.

There are even more powerful indicators to indicate that it is. What you are suggesting is that every order given by every officer and NCO has to be questioned. That reduces the military to a disorganized, ill-disciplined mob. Is that your intent?

before considering whether you’re really an Obama supporter?

As soon as this sort of ad hominim is thrown out, you lose all credibility. Do you really think that people who have been here 9 or 10 years longer than you are Obama supporters? No, what you are saying is that if you don't agree with me I will attack you with silly insults and nonsensical phrases. Well, I can fart in your general direction as well.

Now to your point. You misunderstand the law. When I was a garrison commander, I was warned that if I carried into effect an order that violated a long litany of federal statutes, I would be doing so at my peril. For example, I receive an order, a plan, and funding to expand a firing range in the training area. I proceed before checking to ensure that it wasn't running afoul of the Endangered Species Act in regard to the Red Cockaded Woodpecker or some such. It could be curtains for me as I could be held both criminally and civilly liable for such negligence.

What you are suggesting is that all orders to deploy to Afghanistan since George Bush ordered troops into combat in 2001 are subject to the same standard. Even if you limit your assertion to orders issued since January, 2009 your argument is absurd in its face.

I would love the eligibility fairy to swoop down with her magic wand and send Mr. Obama into the briar patch. But, that is not going to happen and those voices of sanity that keep pointing out the legal and political realities of this situation are not Obama followers, we just don't choose to ride on the crazy train.

The Constitution provides the judiciary to resolve unanswered questions resulting from the Constitution.

If the courts had done their duty this problem would not exist. If the judges haven’t been threatened into accepting theiscommunist coup then every last one of them who refused to take up the question should be impeached for refusing to do their jobs.

Calling it a “political question” as if the Constitution had given the duty to somebody else is the ultimate excuse. I’ve asked the folks here who support that arument, as well as the folks over at the UCMJ website, to show me what words of the Constitution specifically assign the task of interpreting and implementing the 20th Amendment to Congress.

Nothing. They know it is a red herring. They don’t even pretend to support their stance with the actual text of the Constitution - because they know it’s not there. They know that Article III gives this job specifically to the judiciary.

So the bigger question for me is why our judiciary refuses to do its job. I smell a big fat rat somewhere. Nothing surrounding this issue passes the smell test.

In response to your last line, whether Obama is the president or not is absolutely irrelevant. The 20th Amendment says he cannot exercise the presidential powers.

I wasn’t aware of that law. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. This really does show that Obama could end all these suits by simply allowing one case to be heard on its merits.

By defying unlawful orders, Lakin has basically brought a class-action lawsuit (through criminal charges against himself) on behalf of everybody in the military (and outside the military) who wants the issue resolved. When Obama farts in Lakin’s face he is farting at all of us - a big middle finger to everybody who cares about the lawlessness we’ve seen him and his thugs engage in over this issue. The public has one chance to get the case heard right, and if the question is answered the wrong way there is no other lawsuit that can bring up the same question.

This supports my belief that SCOTUS has refused to take up the issue and rule on the merits of the cases because they believe that at this time they would have no choice but to rule the wrong way, which would close the issue forever. I believe Soros and the Islamists have told SCOTUS they will create a financial panic that would destroy the entire world economy, unless SCOTUS and everybody in a position of power allows the communist-Islamist coup to continue unhindered.

We need to make sure that America is protected from such a threat (if possible) before they are forced to take on any case and decide it wrongly.

Is there a ping list for financial wizards here at FR? Does anybody know? I REALLY need to know if there is any way that Congress can protect our economy from economic terrorism like Soros has done in multiple other countries. I believe that question will decide whether America is able to survive as “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.

"whether Obama is the president or not is absolutely irrelevant."

This is where we disagree and I think this is where you are finding disagreement with the courts. Unfortunately, we're going nowhere until WE, like the courts and nearly everyone else in the world, recognize and accept that Obama IS the president despite any doubts anyone might have about his qualifications. If we find an elementary school student driving a car, we shouldn't pretend he isn't driving just because we have doubts about his "qualifications" to drive. The judiciary's Chief Justice administered the oath. Maybe the courts could have and should have acted between the election and the inauguration, but Obama IS now the president.

The Constitution states that the House of Representatives has the "sole" power of impeachment. The Senate is the only body that can try the impeachment.

We have an election coming up in November. Come January, we will have a new Congress and I predict a new Speaker. Speaker Boehner and his members will clearly have the power to impeach Obama and can do so on the grounds that he isn't qualified to be president. Right after that, they can also, if they wish, impeach the Chief Justice and all of his associates for failing to more actively enforce the 20th Amendment.

But, Obama IS now the president and that fact has enormous consequences for anyone having doubts about his qualifications. That fact is anything but irrelevant.

The 20th Amendment says that if a President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect shall “act as President until a President shall have qualified”.

What I’m saying is that the 20th Amendment says there is no way Obama can act as President. Period. Doesn’t matter if he became the President. According to the 20th Amendment only Joe Biden can “act as President” because Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20th. Obama doesn’t even have a legal age at this point. There is no way to know Obama’s legal age, because the birth certificate that he is claiming right now is from Hawaii - and that birth certificate has no legal value; he’s claiming documentation that cannot mean anything legally. That means he has no legal age. Did he “qualify” by being old enough? How can somebody without a legal age legally qualify by being a certain age?

Lakin’s judge is saying this issue is about REMOVING a president. It’s not. It’s about whether Obama could ever give lawful orders as CINC. The 20th Amendment says he can’t. Period.

If Congress wants to remove Obama because we’re stuck paying him when he is Constitutionally disabled from “acting as President”, that is their choice. But the fact of the matter - as we already know - is that Obama is Constitutionally disqualified from exercising any of the Presidential powers. Has been ever since Jan 20, 2009. Every attempt he has made to exercise the presidential powers was an unconstitutional usurpation of the powers that rightfully belong only to Joe Biden.

"There is no way to know Obama’s legal age, because the birth certificate that he is claiming right now is from Hawaii - and that birth certificate has no legal value;"

Where does the Constitution say anything about "birth certificates"? The Constitution requires that he be a certain age, but it provides no guidance as to what specific evidence is adequate to support or to impeach somebody's qualifications. There is also a residency requirement. What if the guy can't find his utility bills and I have decided that utility bills that meet with my approval are the only way to prove his eligibility? Do you really think that the world will delay his presidency until I am satisfied? I don't think so.

Despite the fact that Obama got there without satisfying everyone about his age, place of birth or residency, he IS now the president. And that fact is important to this case because the constitution provides:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . .

The 20th Amendment says that if a President elect “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th then the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”

Period.

This isn’t just that Obama didn’t SHOW his legal documents; he doesn’t HAVE any. Legally, he has nothing. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

And instead of revealing that to the world his campaign posted a forgery online, and he proceeded to conceal from the whole world the fact that he knew it was a forgery all along. He committed a federal CRIME in order to cover up that he has no legal documentation.

You can say that if the Constitution doesn’t say every jot and tiddle of how the qualifying has to be done then this or that, but the fact of the matter is that Article III of the Constitution gives the responsibility for deciding what the Constitution means and how it applies to specific instances TO THE JUDICIARY. Neither you, nor I, nor Congress, nor a military judge can do that. Only the federal judiciary.

That means that the military has NO IDEA whether the orders issued since Jan 20, 2009 are lawful. They CAN’T have any idea; that is beyond their authority and would violate the separation of powers. That is why when Lakin started asking questions about it, it was their duty to file a case with the judiciary in order to get a ruling on it. They should have cared just as much as Lakin, whether the chain of command was acting contrary to the Constitution. The fact that they didn’t give a rip speaks badly of the entire military leadership.

I think Lakin would already have standing to sue, simply because this court-martial was convened under the authority of Obama. If they find him guilty he would definitely have standing to sue for the illegal actions of someone besides Joe Biden acting as CINC. He would have particular justiciable harm so there would be no way they could deny him standing.

I think they are hoping Lakin would sue to have a court-martial conviction overturned - which would get Lakin out of trouble but wouldn’t get him discovery or address the issue at stake. But I think Lakin would use his conviction as the basis to have standing in federal court - to show that he suffered particular, justiciable harm resulting from somebody besides Joe Biden (the only person the Constitution allows to “act as President” since Jan 20, 2009) acting as CINC.

The only way they can skirt this issue forever is if the judiciary lets them, and that is why I am very concerned that the judiciary may have been threatened. I’ve seen such bizarre behavior from so many of the judges, it just doesn’t make sense unless they’ve been taken hostage.

Some of them - like Judge Robertson - I could believe the behavior from, because he’s one of the Magnificent Seven put in place by Clinton to protect his buddies from justice. Somebody of that low quality might well have claimed that the case had already been decided on Twitter, even without having to be threatened into making such a ridiculous judgment - just because he’s a moron.

But to get people like Judge Carter, who seemed to be in earnest, all of a sudden hiring a law clerk from the company defending Obama while the case with Obama was in process with Carter.... that is just plain nuts. That gives such an appearance of corruption that no judge would do that unless they WANTED the case to appear corrupted.

And to have somebody like Clarence Thomas come right out and say that SCOTUS was evading the issue of whether a president has to be born in America, and after a bit of discomfort smile as if it had been a joke all along - to have somebody as serious about justice and the Constitution as Thomas act like that is just bizarre.

And SCOTUS meeting with Obama in private when a case regarding him was pending. Botching up the oath so that the legally binding one was not witnessed by anybody. Justice Stevens calling Joe Biden “Mr President” after swearing him in.

It’s bizarre stuff. I’m afraid they’ve been threatened - not necessarily personally but threatened that Soros and the Islamists will do something like the initial run on the bank in Sept of 2008 which would create a panic and destroy the entire world economy. GW Bush was talking as if the world would end if they didn’t pass TARP. Somebody scared the heck out of him, and if they could scare him that way I don’t doubt that they could also scare SCOTUS. If Soros joined with the Islamists he would have the kind of money and control to do to the world what he has done with individual countries. And it seems very possible that he has united with the Islamists, given that he said he’s afraid America would win the war on terror, which would keep America and capitalism strong - the 2 forces Soros believes are evil incarnate.

What’s ironic is what I was thinking back when a judge in the Dearborn, MI area ruled that the phone monitoring done under Bush was unconstitutional. I realized how vulnerable we are, because one judge could be told by Islamists in a heavily-Muslim area like Dearborn that they or their family would be killed if they didn’t rule a certain way, or if they told anybody that they had been threatened. One judge taken hostage in such a way in a vulnerable part of the country could inflict much legal damage on the country.

And I thought at the time that one of the only ways we could protect ourselves would be to bug the judge’s phone so we could know and prove that a legal decision was made under duress - and could find and capture those responsible. Which made that particular ruling especially critical, since it would destroy our only line of defense against such a thing.

The Muslims know to use our legal system against us. That was in their playbook that was recovered; darn, can’t remember the name of that. But it said that if they were captured they should immediately use America’s legal system as a weapon against America. So we know they are smart and they recognize that our legal system is a huge, huge vulnerability for us.

Everything Obama has done has been to the benefit of the Islamists and to the destruction of the US, Israel, capitalism, and the US Constitution. The motive, the modus operandi, the connections, the results.... it all makes sense when you insert the idea of Soros and the Islamists working together to take our legal system hostage. When you realize that Obama’s lawyers threatened the media heads in just such a way - once before the election and once afterwards - this scenario doesn’t seem as kooky as it might seem at first.

I believe Obama needs to be impeached, if he truly is the President - which many contest and which can only be determined by the courts interpreting the Constitution.

But I also believe that the Constitution never allowed him to exercise any of the presidential powers, so everything he has done since Jan 20, 2009 needs to be undone. Anything that requires that has to be done by someone properly exercising presidential authority has to be undone because Joe Biden didn’t do it. That means all the executive orders - both military and otherwise, all the appointments, all the nominations... it is all unconstitutional and needs to be vacated.

The case right now involves a man accused of disobeying a lawful order. What he disobeyed was an order that needs to be vacated because it was not given by Joe Biden, the only person the Constitution authorizes to act as President/CINC.

There is no way they should convict a guy for disobeying a lawful order when there is no way the order can be lawful.

Obama has no legal age, birthplace, or parents - each of which could disqualify him, so each of which has to be legally determined in order for him to “qualify”. There is no way he could legally prove any of those things on the basis of his Hawaii birth certificate because it is not legally valid, and he’s not letting anybody see his Kenyan BC (or whatever BC he has used for ID purposes his entire life).

Whatever BC he could offer as proof of his age would have to be from someplace besides Hawaii (and Washington State has no birth record for him) so it would just about have to be foreign and thus would disqualify him on the natural born citizenship requirement. It’s a catch-22. There is no way that he could have qualified by Jan 20, 2009. So he could never give valid orders as CINC. That is the only issue the Lakin judge needs to concern herself with. Whether or not Congress gets rid of the Constitutionally-disabled Obama is another issue, but Lakin’s case is all about whether anybody besides Joe Biden could act as CINC.

I understand how you might have taken my comment to NS as ad hominem, given the context. However, I assure you, it was not meant as such. I was using the age-old technique of applying the golden rule, by showing how the arguer was asking for himself a benefit he was denying to the subject of his condemnation, consideration of mental state. I was not saying NS actually was an Obama supporter. I was only saying that IF mental state were excluded from consideration, the objective EFFECT of NS coming on FR and spending hours ripping on constitutionalists (with plenty of arguably ad hominem comments, one of which is simply calling people “birthers”), THEN NS could reasonably be construed as taking action that helped keep a socialist tyrant in power, not intentionally, mind you, but as a consequence of actions taken, that would be the net effect, as it tends to diminish the importance of constitutional governance.

Seems pretty unfair leaving your mental state out of the equation, doesn’t it. Hmmm…

So, like I said, I know why you misread that. That’s OK. The effect was intentional; it allowed me to further demonstrate by live example the fundamental inconsistency of the position on Lakin’s mental state taken here by the ever-present “anti-birther brigade.” Thank you for your help.

And no, my FRiend, I do not misunderstand the law. I merely see it in grander scope than just the bare words of the UCMJ, or your litany of federal statutes protecting endangered animals, both of which fall lower in the hierarchy of constitutional concerns than the validity of command authority. I suggest you check out Blackstone’s view on the prioritization of legal principles. It would really help you sort this all out. Federal statutes are certainly valid concerns, but they are only indirectly of constitutional caliber. Of far greater importance is the credibility of the explicitly constitutionally created chain of command and the criteria for its existence.

As for your “eligibility fairy” and “crazy train” comments, are they not merely indirect ad hominem attacks (implying as they do the incompetent mental state of all who hope for vindication of this important constitutional issue)? I would have thought if such attacks uniformly and instantly removed all credibility you would not use them, even if others did, in the interest of preserving your own credibility. That certainly is my own principle, and I highly recommend it.

And for the record, anyone who has served his country as you have would have to go much further than mere insult to lose credibility with me. Thank you for your service. :)

NS, as I said to centurion, I respect your position. I merely seek a fair application of the principle of intent. I seriously doubt that an incessant attack on those who seek to apply the criteria for constitutional command authority is objectively supportive of the military. However, assuming for argument’s sake that it is, that is secondary to whether such attacks are objectively supportive of the Republic as a whole and the timeless principles upon which it is based. The Army is but one component, a servant of the Republic, not the primary expression of the Republic. If we can only save the Army by disparaging the Constitution, what a poor solution that is.

As for your question of case law, I understand your point, and to a limited extent I agree with it. You cannot have every soldier questioning any and all orders, especially those orders that are facially valid, i.e., there is nothing inherently illegal in the act being ordered, regardless of command authority. I get that. However, I do see a responsibility for constitutional measurement as something we should expect from our commissioned officers. My fear is that such independent thinking is penalized by the political nature of that environment.

But we have a unique situation on our hands. I have no doubt it was designed to be thus unique, and therefore likely to create the kind of fracturing debate we are having her on FR, precisely because such debate disables and delays a ready response to an immediate threat to our Republic. The more time they have on the field, the more damage they can do.

So let me put you to a poser, if you are willing to take it on. Say there was a political coup by a cadre of Lithuanian anarchists (or whatever). Further speculate that all of the non-Lithuanian members of Congress had mysteriously succumbed to fast-food induced comas (thus preventing election of replacements), and the chief Lithuanian anarchist had engineered sufficient numbers of those who remained in Congress that impeachment was impossible. In short, everything was facially legal, and no illegal aspects were provable, and no act of the Anarchist in Chief was stoppable, even those actions that explicitly attacked the authority of the Constitution, and such acts have in fact taken place.

Now, put yourself in the situation. You are a commissioned officer. You have been trained to uphold the Constitution at all costs to yourself, and you have taken an oath to that effect. You have observed the coup at close hand. You have seen how at every turn it has been so well engineered that no legal way to stop it seems to work (actually, this would not make too bad of a Tom Clancy movie). You hated how the 60’s hippies used “question authority” to undermine a legitimate government, and you are loath to invoke that mantra, but what do you do when a facially valid order comes that has the color of authority from one you believe to be the Fraud in Chief (FinC), whom you are certain is using all of his authority to work against both American interests and the Constitution itself? What do you do?

You have a duty to obey on the one hand, and a duty to uphold the Constitution on the other hand. You are forced to choose one or the other, because if you obey, you are objectively endorsing the ultimate authority of the FinC over the Constitution, and if you uphold the Constitution, you throw the basis for military discipline and effectiveness into disarray.

I understand that these are difficult choices, but this is the reality we are in, right now, and this is the choice we have before us. I would hope that we could discuss these choices without each side discrediting the other with words of disrespect. We have a common enemy, and it is that enemy who has deliberately engineered this difficult dilemma, not you, not me. We shouldn’t be fighting each other. We should be working together to defend our country and our Constitution. You can’t have the one without the other.

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.