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.
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.
Why are you saying the judge has no power to relieve the CIC of his duties? That has nothing to do with the case. Lakin isn't asking the judge to to that. What's your point? That Lakin can't ask for discovery? Springfield Refomer pulverized your objections to that already.
And what about your statement "The Prez did not violate any laws" - you mean "ever"? or what?
What president?
Occupying a particular chair does not constitute right thereto.
The Constitution specifically states that a President elect who “fails to qualify” before January 20th is FORBIDDEN from exercising the presidential powers - which includes acting as CINC.
We know that Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009 because even TO THIS DAY he has never allowed the only procedure which can cause his amended birth certificate to have any legal evidentiary value: presenting it as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and having them determine that it is legally probative.
Because that never happened, the best Hawaii has for Obama is the legal equivalent of Monopoly money.
Every act he has done as President is unconstitutional. The 20th Amendment only allows Joe Biden to “act as president” until a “President shall have qualified”.
And furthermore, the military does not have the authority to decide whether a President can act as CINC under the 20th Amendment; that can only be decided by the judicial system. For the military to decide on their own that Obama CAN act as CINC is overstepping their authority. They should have submitted the question to the courts when Lakin asked them to clarify whether or not the chain of command had been compromised. They poo-poohed the issue, knowing that only the courts could give them a legal answer.
The military is way, way out of line in their treatment of this issue. By not referring this to the judiciary to resolve the Constitutional issue - by assuming that the orders were lawful even though there are questions about the Constitutionality which could negate the lawfulness of the orders - the military is violating the separation of powers.
They admit they don’t have the power to remove Obama’s presidential powers; they need to admit that they also don’t have the power to GRANT him presidential powers. Only SCOTUS can ultimately decide how the 20th Amendment applies to this situation.