Posted on 09/02/2010 2:24:49 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
He will have self respect. At one time that meant something.
What a coward, and moreover, he’s entitled to whatever defense he wants as long as its legal, and this one is.
Sorry, judge, I like this defense just fine. Sorry if it embarrasses your boss, but then there is no law against that. He’s doing a fine job by himself anyway.
Not only did the Prez not violate any law, the judge does not have the power to relieve him of his Commander in Chief duties as granted under the Constitution.
The predictable bile of the so-called patriots. Everyone who disagrees with their ignorance of the law is evil. It doesn't get much more narrow-minded and pathetic than that.
Yep, I am sickened by this. So message to all troops...
Has anyone considered what would happen if there was a revolt in the military? I mean those cozy judges wouldn’t care, right? As long as they don’t “embarass” the President.
I mean I physically feel nauseous.
(a) The Court of Military Appeals shall review the record in--
(1) all cases in which the sentence, as affirmed by a Court of Military Review, extends to death;
(2) all cases reviewed by a Court of Military Review which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Military Appeals for review; and
(3) all cases reviewed by a Court of Military Review in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the Court of Military Appeals has granted review.
(b) the accused may petition the Court of Military Appeals for review of a decision of a court of Military Review within 60 days from the earlier of --
(1) the date on which the accused is notified of the decision of the Court of Military Review; or
(2) the date on which a copy of the decision of the Court of Military Review, after being served on appellate counsel of record fro the accused (if any), is deposited in the United States mails for delivery by first class mail to the accused at an address provided by the accused, or, if no such address has been provided by the accused, at the last address listed for the accused in his official service record. The Court of Military Appeals shall act upon such a petition promptly in accordance with the rules of the court.
(c) In any case reviewed by it, the Court of Military Appeals may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the Court of Military Review. In a case which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Military Appeals, that action need be taken only with respect to the issues raised by him. In a case reviewed upon petition of the accused, that action need be taken only with respect to issues specified in the grant of review. The Court of Military Appeals shall take action only with respect to matters of law.
(d) If the Court of Military Appeals sets aside the findings and sentence, it may, except where the setting aside is based on lack of sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings, order a rehearing. If it sets aside the findings and sentence and does not order a rehearing, it shall order that the charges be dismissed.
(e) After it has acted on a case, the Court of Military Appeals may direct the Judge Advocate General to return the record to the Court of Military Review for further review in accordance with the decision of the Court. Otherwise, unless there is to be further action by the President or the Secretary concerned, the Judge Advocate General shall instruct the convening authority to take action in accordance with that decision. If the court has ordered a rehearing, but the convening authority finds a rehearing impracticable, he may dismiss the charges.
(a) Decisions of the Unites States Court of Military Appeals are subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari as provided in section 1259 of title 28. The Supreme Court may not review by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the Court of Military Appeals in refusing to grant a petition for review.
(b) The accused may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor and without filing the affidavit required by section 1915(a) of title 28.
This is not over and done with. The lines have been clearly drawn and people know now they have got to stand up and take sides. Lakin will be the catylst that incites men and women to confront what has really happened in this country. He is a very brave man and has sacrificed, by his action, what he had for his country. I salute him.
He isn’t suing, he’s fighting a criminal conviction for disobeying orders. He’s being denied evidence to justify his stance because it might embarrass someone. So this guy should spend time in JAIL, MILITARY JAIL to avoid “embarrassing” someone.
I am having trouble understanding how even those who laugh at us ‘birthers’ could deny that this is getting ridiculous.
It is my interpretation that NBC means 2 parent citizens, plain and simple. NO dual citizenship. It defies logic to interpret any other way.
The bottom line, however, is that Obama's place of birth has nothing to do with the lawfulness of the orders he disobeyed and that is how the courts will come out on this.
This whole thing is getting bizarre. I would think that as citizens it would be US that would have the right to make sure we were not duped!
You are correct. The only way he can be legally removed before 2012 is for articles of impeachment to be passed by the House and two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict. Aint gonna happen even if the GOP wins the Senate because they wont have 67 votes to convict. Simple as that.
This sounds like a ruling from the USSR.
She's bought.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but let's just say she was told what to do, and - in sharp contrast to the courage shown by Lt. Col. Lakin - followed her orders, despite the fact they were of dubious legality.
As I understand it (IANAL), whether Obama violated any law strictly speaking is not the issue before the court. The issue before the court is whether or not Lakin violated the law.
Whether she was bought with money or intimidation she has sold out her fealty to the law.
His 'stance' and its justification is of no interest to the court, nor should it be. Motivation is not relevant, any more than the motivation of a bank robber is relevant. The question is, did he commit the crime he's charged with? The answer is yes.
Not to mention he got the judge’s gender wrong.
...not about impeachment, about eligibility...
Yes, but the only remedy at this point for ineligibility is impeachment. Catch 22. He was certified by the electoral college and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he is POTUS whether he was eligible or not. The fact that he is POTUS means he was eligible. It may be maddening to you, but that is the law and the only legal remedy is impeachment where you will not find 67 Senators to vote for removal.
It’s not “just” a birth certificate. It is any kind of proof that proves whether the guy in the White House is actually eligible or not.
And if there had been such questions with previous presidents, the situation would still have been the same.
This “there was no law in 2008” means nothing.
Correct. I responded to #39.
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.