Posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by RatsDawg
BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO! Check out the video on YouTube
Thank you. I agree and appreciate your response.
You're being too condescending to Lt. Colonel Lakin. And I don't see how any law passed by Congress short of a Constitutional amendment could shield the CIC from being the originating authority of the Armed Forces and therefore ultimately responsible for every action and command given in his command.
If you want a straight or truthful answer, you are asking the wrong person.
Of course the local zoneing laws (just passed) in my local community derive their authority from Barry.
/sheesh
/s
Geez, seriously? Congress can not ammend the Constitution by themselves...even if 100% in both houses agree.
>The officer that gave the order was promoted to his current rank and authority by a board of officers under Obama’s predicessor and confirmed by congress.
>
>Almost all of the current senior officers directly nominated to their positions by the SecDef on behalf of President Bush. and confirmed by that congress.
So, how is this relevant?
>Unless you are saying that all officers require reconfirmation [they do not] or that Gates was not eligible, then your argument is incorrect.
Actually that was EXACTLY the case in the early history of the United States.
> Try reading the oath and UCMJ.
The Oath of Enlistment for the Army, National Guard {because it is slightly more complex; and so includes all the regular army’s would}:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (state name) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (state name) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
Even if Obama is ineligable, it is inmaterial to his failure to obey a lawful order.
Note the ordering here: The Constitutions are FIRST AND FOREMOST, and the oath is to support and defend *THEM* against all enemies, of whatever origin.
Secondly: this is followed with a reaffirmation of those Constitutions — “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
Note:
al-le-giance –noun
1. — the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign.
2. — loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.
{ The second definition fits perfectly with no mental gymnastics, the first if you consider the Constitution to be the sovereign [ruler of the country]. }
Thirdly: the orders of the president [in federal activation] and the governor [otherwise] AND the officers appointed over me are connected... (with the ‘and’).
Fourth: The orders mentioned in the third-point are qualified as being those that are in conformance with the Law and Regulation... again, the Constitution is the Supreme law if the United States.
Fifth: “So help me God.” — An acknowledgment of humility and our inability to perfectly and completely abide by this oath; God is the only one that CAN help/enable one to keep such a weighty oath. / We are human and need God’s help for even this.
>Obama did not give him his order, A uniformed officer gave that order.
See the above.
>Presidents rarely give orders and when they do it is to the SecDef or JCS. They give orders in their own rights as to the details.
So, are you saying that the President would not be responsible if he heard his Secretary of Defense give a contra-constitutional order and allowed it by refusing to countermand it?
>What you are arguing is called Solicitation to Mutney under military law and can carry the death penelty. Part of the Treason Laws...
I love it when adherence to my oath of enlistment, and the Constitution-as-supreme-law, are Treason!
[/sarc]
PS - Thomas Jefferson said the following, which can be applied even to MILITARY governance:
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
I didn’t SAY local zoning laws, did I?
TAX laws passed by Congress are not valid if never presented to a genuine President, are they? So how about you disobey the tax law, and publicly talk about how you disobey it, and see if they prosecute you...
>Also, in the US, there is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
Then there’s no problem whatsoever with me going out, saying I’m a doctor, and performing medical operations... until a court of law finds me guilty of breaking some law?
>President Obama has not been charged or found guilty of the fraud claimed.
Wrong: He *HAS* been charged, but so far all the courts seem to shrug off the charges with the “lack of standing excuse.”
>That poor excuse for an officer has broken the law no matter how you read it.
So, is requesting the supreme law of the land be kept unimpeachable, and ensuring that what you are sworn to protect is not callously disregarded illegal?
>He has declared himself judge and jury over the eligibility of the President, found him guilty, and refused lawfull orders by other senior commisioned officers over an order that Obama never even saw...
Irrelevant. If a Captain of a navel vessel is responsible for the actions of all of his crew, even during shore leave, then how can the “Captain of the Country” not be responsible for the actions of his “duly appointed officers”?
>You are arguing for anarchy rules.
No, by disregarding the supreme law of the land’s authority and jurisdiction you are arguing for nothing less than tyranny.
>That is not a precident you want, unless you wish for a military dictatorship...
Precedent and case law are a repugnant evil, A CANCER on our country’s legal system; it is nothing less than the judicial equivalent of the children’s game ‘telephone!’! It elevates what some judge says the law says to a position HIGHER than the law itself: for proof, note that the Supreme Court has ruled that the prohibition against ex post facto laws or bills of attainder apply ONLY TO CRIMINAL LAW. However, given that retroactive civil tax laws can, and ARE, punished criminally they become in effect RETROACTIVE CRIMINAL LAWS.
I spit on “precedent”.
Absolutely not.
No offense but I think a whole bunch of birthers need a civics course.
To make the analogy complete, the fake doctor would have been licensed by the medical board under their power and discretion to approve him for practicing medicine. Congress has approved the president as being qualified. There is no other higher power that can override them except the voters.
You leave out the Congress, and the electors, and the majority of the voters. There is a process laid out. It was followed. It doesn't include a requirement to check birth certificates. That's just the way it is.
Even if there were such a requirement, someone would have to have the job of declaring yes or no on the question. And then you could come back and say they didn't do it right. At some point a decision always has to be made. This is one has been done according to the procedures in place. It's done.
You could argue that the procedure should be different. That in this modern age birth certificates should be checked. Great. I agree. Get a state to pass such a law and it will happen.
Flunking Civics is pretty much a Birther requirement.
>>Then there’s no problem whatsoever with me going out, saying I’m a doctor, and performing medical operations
>
>To make the analogy complete, the fake doctor would have been licensed by the medical board under their power and discretion to approve him for practicing medicine.
To make the analogy more correct AND complete it would be akin to the fraudulent doctor having a piece of paper he, and his staff, say is a license, the licensing-board refusing to actually look at the alleged license, and the court denying patients who had not died standing because he hadn’t killed them... and conveniently ignoring those he HAS killed.
>Congress has approved the president as being qualified. There is no other higher power that can override them except the voters.
Voters... and bullets. Don’t forget that the price of freedom is oft paid in the blood of both patriots and tyrants.
Good points! Thanks.
Why was the letter from Old Nasty and the DNC required then?
Which letter are you referring to, the one where she said he was Constitutionally qualified or the one that stands mute on his Constitutional qualifications?
I guess Nancy and co realized that deliberately falsely certifying that he’s qualified is felony fraud...
This is why it only requires one state to pass a law requiring proof of birth to get on the ballot. He'd have to provide it for that state. A failure to get on one state's ballot would become a national issue.
To: AllPelosi signed two Official Certifications of Nomination for Obama and Biden at the DNC Convention last August. Read the language carefully and note the difference between them:
2nd version, without the Constitutional reference
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHY WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE REMOVED ?
8,379 posted on 08/31/2009 1:59:54 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
Ok guys, I got a legal conundrum for you. Please, by all means, show off your wisdom and mastery of the legal system.
| CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO |
|---|
| Article II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] |
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. |
| Article II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.] |
| All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness. |
| NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty. |
|---|
| A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by: (1) a peace officer; (2) university security personnel; (3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program; (4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or (5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property. B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises. C. As used in this section: D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. |
For "extra credit" tell me why city and county can legitimately post "No Weapons" on their courthouses even though the State Constitution explicitly states:
"No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
No objections were called for...
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.
