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 ...
obama is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of President. He is a usurper who was elected with the full knowledge of the Democrat Party hierarchy, the Republican Party hierarchy, and the main stream media.
[Thank you, sport.]
Yes, the ultimate appeal is to SCOTUS.
Hussein is Prez. Only Congress can remove him prior to Jan 2013.
You are absolutely correct. It is a due process issue, not a separation of powers issue. The government exists to serve its citizens,according the Constitution, not the other way around.The judge is dead wrong and she is winging it big time because the entire command system is at stake in her eyes, which pales the rights of the accused. She is wrong, those rights cannot be deemed comparitively insignificant or pale. On appeal the courts , if fair and just, will tear her logic apart.
This is a criminal case, not a civil case, and what you have said is absolutely correct.Political correctness of embarassment cannot win the day in this case.
Are you copying stuff you were emailed, or what?
Try again.
Memos from the boss.
You didn’t reply to Spingfield Reformer, so unless you do, there’s no point in you repeating the same stuff over and over again.
Your argument asserts that possession is ten tenths of the law. “He won” so “he gets away with it”.
You didn’t address S.R.
Address what?
I’m sure that the Commander in Chief is not going to sit by and allow a distinguished flight surgeon
to immolate his career and possibly wind up in Leavenworth
because of doubts about his sealed birth certificate.
The Commander in Chief is probably ordering his staff , as we speak ,
to contact the appropriate authorities and have all documents unsealed
and all doubts allayed.
It’s hard to imagine that any CinC would allow citizens, especially members of the Armed Forces, in war time,
to have doubts about his eligibility .
In fact, the CinC is probably highly embarrassed that his birth certificate and
“ other original vital records “ have been sealed and will sincerely
apologize to all citizens for giving the appearance
that he is hiding something .
No doubt he is very ashamed that his stubborn refusal to open his records has caused so much turmoil ,
expense , ridicule and
career jeopardy to members of the military and other citizens.
The media firestorm accompanying the sealed birth certificate
and other sealed original vital records was most likely not a factor
in ordering them unsealed.
It will be done because the Commander in Chief believes it is the honorable and decent thing to do
in the spirit of transparency and full disclosure.
But, most of all because he has such high regard for the military and their service
and could not sleep if just one soldier in harm’s way had doubts.
Just kidding..
Springfield Reformer’s two comments to you. He’s intelligent and I’m just a high school dropout with a bit of motherwit.
To: Jacquerie
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.
29 posted on 09/02/2010 3:36:53 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Jacquerie
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.
39 posted on 09/02/2010 4:19:25 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
What president?
Occupying a particular chair does not constitute right thereto.
“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.”
So by your logic, justification isn’t relevant? Am I to understand that motive and reasoning for committing an act is not a defense? I would imagine thousands who have faced murder charges and fought on the basis of self defense would argue with you on that point. The fact is that the legality of war orders is VERY relevant. As an officer, he is beholden to the constitution, NOT THE PRESIDENT. Therefore, it is HIS job as a military officer to protect the TROOPS WHO CANNOT QUESTION THE ORDERS.
You have been a COLB troll for years now, but to reach this point, you are just grasping at straws to attempt to justify your own bull headed arguments made over time.
.....that is insane.....
Insane.....maybe? True.....absolutely. Everything I said is true and the only legal remedy is impeachment. Once the Electoral College certifies the election and the Chief Justice swears him in, he is the POTUS and impeachment is the only remedy. I do not want to have to explain this again. Case closed.
There is nothing there to respond to.
Meaningless fluff.
Larkin’s case is going nowhere. I wish he had not made such a poor choice.
I salute and pray for this very brave man.
Exactly!
And...If Rush, Beck, Hannity, Ingram, Levine, etc. bury this story in silence then we know EXACTLY where these weenies stand! They are standing on the side of tyranny and aiding and abetting the destruction of our Constitution!
I am disgusted with the lot of them! I have nothing but contempt for them!
Rush says, “Talent on loan from God!” Well...Unless these weenies use their talent for good, God will raise up other voices that will ellipse theirs and they will be left eating dust.
Nuts! Case still open. You can’t impeach someone who is not eligible to be president in the first place. It does not matter who swore him in or certified the election. The chief justice does not have authority to override the constitution and neither does the electoral college. If he is not eligible to be president according to the constitution, he is not president and can not be impeached. You can twist it any way you want but that does not make it true.
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.