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 ...
Once again, the esily predictable happens.
Quelle surprise.
Army Col. Denise R. Lind would have willingly supported
both Hitler and the 911 Atrocities.
Then again, he is helping the creators of both.
If the president isn’t a liar he won’t be embarrassed!
“Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.”
that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.”
that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.”
that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.”
Forget the Commander In Chief. Who cares if he’s eligible.
So according to Col. Lind all orders come from the Pentagon. I guess that means that the president is not the Commander In Chief, right? He has NOTHING to do with sending the troops anywhere. And if the phone rings at 3AM, the Pentagon answers it. Is Col. Lind going to be the one that breaks this news to BO?
Is "embarrassment" to a principle in a court case a reason to deny the defendant their choice of defense? Has Lakin called for 0bama's impeachment? If not that's just a straw man. This judge has been bought.
No kidding!! I thought he was just asking to see his *papers*!!
What a pantload.
It’s not a separation of powers issue. That’s just confusion in the mind of the judge talking. It is a right of long standing that we who purport to live under laws and not men may question the validity of any purported authority.
That right to challenge authority applies to our military as much as it does to any ordinary citizen confronted with a uniformed person armed with a taser banging on their door. We have a right to talk back, to demand to know “where is your badge, where is your warrant?”
The lawfulness of the deployment order can be disputed on other grounds, such as the de facto officer doctrine, but that does not eliminate the fact that this good soldier can prove he had justification for at least questioning and perhaps refusing the order if he can demonstrate, through evidence, that a reasonable soldier could legitimately doubt Obama’s eligibility.
Don’t buy into the judge’s confusion. This is about the Commander in Chief and a soldier purportedly under his command, not about the judiciary versus the executive. The court here is just sidestepping a routinely used method of getting the necessary evidence to let a man defend himself. That right of self-defense is fundamental to the nature of our Republic and trumps any amount of presidential “embarrassment” that might result.
It is a disgrace that the Republican Party and so many of the so called Conservative media remain silent on this vitally important constitutional issue.
Yes, it is a separation of powers issue. No law as of 2008 required a Presidential nominee to produce a birth certificate.
Considering the documents that LTC Lakin is requesting are ones that other Presidents have voluntarily released, what exactly is the “embarressment” she is referring to???
You can’t impeach a president that was never legitimate in the first place.
If God forbid he is impeached, it means that he was there rightfully and everything he has done stands.
??????
Sorry as it is, Hussein is President. A judge cannot remove Commander in Chief powers bestowed by the Constitution.
The judge is making things up to support her ruling. She’s bought.
Could you put this in common language?
This woman “judge” is Obama’s dancing bear.
No law now requires the production of a birth certificate for a President. However, there are many laws that provide for an accused to do exculpatory discovery. That sort of thing has been around from before the creation of the Constitution. It is a primary right, a preexisting corollary to the Declaration’s assertion of a right to life and liberty. The accused in a court-martial is at risk of losing both. The entire reason for our system existing is to prevent this kind of thing from happening *without due process.* Due process means if he can show his act, including his mental state, doesn’t line up with the formal elements of the crime by evidence, he has a *right* to that evidence. We fought all our wars to defend this principle. Don’t be telling me that this is separation of powers, not when exculpatory discovery is used *all the time* in cases of individuals pitted against the executive in both criminal and civil cases. It’s how the system was designed to work, *by the Founders!* It’s called accountability, it works, and it’s the right thing to do.
I am unfamiliar with military justice procedures.
Does the appeals process potentially go to the Supreme Court?
Since 2007, several bills have been introduced into Congress to expand the accessibility of service members to the Supreme Court.
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.