MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO!

YouTube ^ | September 03, 2010 | ppsimmons

[OneWingedShark]

>See post 218. The facts, which birthers like to ignore and which explains why birthers cannot win a case in court.
>
>Meanwhile - have you started disobeying those illegally passed tax laws yet, or are you still just encouraging the military to disobey ‘illegal’ orders?

Intriguing assessment. Let me present some facts and ask two questions.
1 — The Constitution says: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
2 — The Supreme Court has ruled that these prohibitions apply only to criminal law.
3 — The Tax laws are allowed to be retroactively changed; “because they are civil laws/regulation.”
4 — Violations of these retroactively changed laws/regulations are prosecuted in criminal courts.

Why is this legal?
Does the conflict here, that is violations of something considered as ‘civil law’ being prosecuted as a violation of ‘criminal law,’ indicate that the Supreme Court was wrong in its ruling?

[Mr Rogers]

Beats me. But the birthers like to argue that military members have an obligation to disobey orders since 20 Jan 2009 since Obama cannot issue valid orders. By the same logic, any law passed since then is invalid, since it has never been presented to a valid President - so why don’t the birthers disobey all the laws passed since 20 Jan 2009?

I’m just tired of Internet heroes urging the military to disobey (like Lakin), secure in the knowledge that Lakin or others will go to the prison these Internet heroes choose to avoid.

[jamese777]

The Constitution doesn’t give a power to any specific branch for establishing the eligibility of the president. Again, there’s already precedence where the court has reviewed eligibility of a Congressional electee. There’s no constitutional restriction from the court performing the same review of presidential electee or fraudulently seated president.

---

The current High Court has denied hearings to any of the eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them for “cert conferences.” The question remains at the lower court levels as to who has legal standing to bring a lawsuit on eligibility. Thus far in 73 attempts, no one has overcome the legal standing hurdle.

My guess on the Supreme Court of the United States level is that Justice Roberts has recused himself from all Obama eligibility appeals since he swore Obama in (twice) and invited Obama and Biden over to the Court for cocktails and conversation after the Inauguration.

Justice Scalia is a pretty strict “jus soli” judge. Having argued that position in open court in oral arguments in an immigraation case.
In the oral arguments for “Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS” (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on “jus soli” (birth in the United States).

Here is the relevant section from the transcript:
Justice Scalia: … “I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.”

[Ms.]. Davis: “Yes, by the same token…”

Justice Scalia: “That is jus soli, isn’t it?”

[Ms.] Davis: “By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.”

Justice Scalia: “Well, maybe.

I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”

---

That leaves Justices Alito, Thomas and Kennedy to possibly be willing to entertain a natural born citizen appeal and it takes four justices (the Rule of Four) to agree to hear a case before the full Court.
I doubt if Sotomayor, Kagan, Breuer, or Bader Ginsberg is interested.

[rxsid]

Hey Mr., here's what you DID say:

"Using your rationale, there has been no valid law passed since Obama took office, since no law was ever submitted to a qualified President."

Tell me Mr., where did you EXCLUDE local (or even state) laws in that statement?

sheesh. lol.

[OneWingedShark]

>Beats me.

I find it quite disturbing; and would like to know the ‘whyfor’ of it. (Which is why I frequently preset such legal contradictions; I find your honest “I don’t know” refreshing compared to the blind loyalty to the INSTITUTIONS rather than the LAWS of the government that seem rather prevalent.)

>But the birthers like to argue that military members have an obligation to disobey orders since 20 Jan 2009 since Obama cannot issue valid orders.

I qualify that with the fact of qualification, which despite what has been said here, has not been proven (merely ignored); this is in accordance with my oath of enlistment which is first and foremost to the Constitution of the United States [and that of New Mexico, I was National Guard] and the officer’s oath which doesn’t mention orders from the president. {IOW, both military oaths are to the CONSTITUTION rather than the INSTITUTION of the United States of America; as Jefferson said: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”}

>By the same logic, any law passed since then is invalid, since it has never been presented to a valid President - so why don’t the birthers disobey all the laws passed since 20 Jan 2009?

Not *all* laws, but rather, all *federal* laws. I can’t speak for the others, but I have no intention of complying with ObamaCare and such...

>I’m just tired of Internet heroes urging the military to disobey (like Lakin),

I try not to urge disobedience, but rather a demand for verification of the authority’s legitimacy. It honestly isn’t much to ask.
If Obama is qualified it would reassure any troop who is unsure about such validity... but, the contrary thing to consider is that, being bound to the Constitution, they are Obligated to remove him from office if he is found ineligible. {As is every congressman, judge, and LEO in the country.}

I think it is the mere possibility of the second outcome that is generating such a [governmental] resistance to the verification of Obama’s eligibility.
{The high-ups would “lose face” and that must be avoided at all costs, according to their line of thought; as this thread’s title suggests it would ‘embarrass’ Obama... but it would also embarrass the congress & the courts who have accepted and endorsed him as the legitimate President of the United States.}

>secure in the knowledge that Lakin or others will go to the prison these Internet heroes choose to avoid.

Actually, there is a portion of me that wishes to “be manly” and “chew nails and spit bullets” concerning the contradictions in the law that I keep finding. Practically speaking, it seems that the only way for me to challenge the validity of the State Law [see post #119] would be to violate it and use the State Constitution as my legal defense in court. (I dislike this idea because I would be fighting from a position of weakness, having “broken” the law; versus the position of strength wherein I could challenge it w/o violating either it or the State Constitution.)

[jerseyrocks]

This is simple. The media did not vet this so-called President. How come we don’t know his grades, college writings, friends, etc.? Its like this guy and his wife didn’t exit they just popped up. With Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Bush and on the list goes we knew everything. Could the media be the racists and their guilt has them hiding the truth?

[OneWingedShark]

That is probable... the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive though.
Both government and media could be in CYA-mode; in fact, it could make more sense to consider that the media could have MORE interest in YA because they fear government crackdown should they cast any suspicion upon the legitimacy and/or trustworthiness of the government.

Fox-news has taken a bit of a beating from the government for “daring to be different”... but even fox-news is not so different that it is actively pursuing the truth in this matter.

[omegadawn]

I agree that our curent system need some treaking to restore the orginal intent of the founding fathers. I also believe that biden knows that obama is ineligible to be president and was part of the conspircy to get him elected. Both should be removed under District of columbia code 3501.

[Mr Rogers]

“Tell me Mr., where did you EXCLUDE local (or even state) laws in that statement?”

I assumed a slight amount of intelligence from the readers. I’m sorry to see you didn’t meet that qualification.

So, now that we’ve established Obama is sitting as President of the USA rather than on your local Board of Supervisors...what FEDERAL law do you advocate disobeying, and when do you plan to do so publicly?

[old republic]

One thing that many people seem to forget is that the founders carefully designed power relations between the different branches of government. People don't realize that originally no branch of the federal government was chosen in the same way or by the same people and that this is important. It was a puposeful part of the design. They knew that each branch of the government would have to cater to the group who elected/appointed it in order to stay in power, and the founders didn't want any one group to control all of the branches for any significant length of time. That is why each branch was chosen in a different way to ensure that it was difficult for any one group of political interests control everything. The founders decided that The House was the popularly elected house that spoke for all the voters and had to cater to the masses. The Senate was selected by state legislatures so it would be beholden to the States as political entities. Judges would be chosen by those likely to be familiar with the qualities necessary in interpreting the law, but that prevents collusion of two branches power. Hence judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the states in the senate.

Since there was already one branch that was popularly elected, the founders had to figure out how to choose the president, but at the same time make it so that he was elected in a way that was different from the House so that two branches would not be beholden to the same interest groups, and thus collude their powers together.

The Founders wanted to make it difficult for any one group to be able to manipulate the election of the president. That is why they created the electoral college. The citizens voted for an elector whose judgment they trusted and then each elector in the college was supposed to be independent and capable of electing whomever they thought was best. Since this happened in each separate state capital, and each elector was supposed to be independent, and since no one knew who the electors were going to be until after the election (so it would be difficult to corrupt all of them before they voted for president in 18-19th century America). Because of this, it was difficult for a single interest groupo to control and influence all of the electors, meaning that the president would not have to cater to any one group. The president wouldn't be the pawn of the legislature or the courts or any one state.

We have thrown off the entire balance of power the original constitution created so that now all branches of the government except the judiciary are effectively elected by the same group in in the same way. Unsurprisingly, these branches now more frequently collude together to attack freedom in ways they're not supposed to be able to do. The Electoral College's original purpose to protect freedom by making sure the presidency wasn't elected in the same way by the same groups as the other two branches has effectively been undermined and turned into a de facto popular election. (It takes pretty extraordinary circumstances to lose the popular vote and still win the presidency even with the electoral college).

In short, we have made our Federal Republic into a Democratic Republic that acts like 5th century B.C. Athenian democracy...something that our founders feared. "Mobocracy" is not necessarily the best way to go.

[old republic]

The word “ineligible” comes from the Latin word that literally means “not electable” or “cannot be chosen.” How can you be president, if you couldn’t even be legally chosen for the job? If anything that suggests that the election was invalid.

[edge919]

See post 218.

All I see is the repetition of debunked claim. WKA did not argue that anyone was a natural born citizen. This is your faither imagination engaging in pure delusional fantasy. WKA gave the Minor definition of NBC, and recognizing that it didn't apply to the plaintiff, used a review of English common law to figure out a way to apply the 14th amendment to the child of Chinese subjects in order to make the child a 'citizen of the United States.' That is the fact that YOU continually ignore in favor of spreading falsehoods.

[edge919]

Quoting Scalia doesn’t help your faither argument. “I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?” He could easily be talking about Barak Obama Sr.

[edge919]

Sorry, but this is faither strawman logic. Obama doesn’t write the laws. Disobeying military orders (that originate under the CinC) is not the same as disobeying laws. In Lakin’s case, disobeying orders was a last resort as he had tried other ways of getting an official, legal and verifiable determination of Obama’s eligibility status.

[Mr Rogers]

If I’m the one who is delusional, why does your side always lose at court?

And the entire government supports Lakin’s deployment, so it is NOT just the act of the President. And if Obama isn’t REALLY the President, and no order given the military has been valid since 20 Jan 2009, then it is equally true that no law passed since 20 Jan 2009 is a valid law - so why not disobey them?

Oh, that’s right - because then it would be YOUR butt going to prison, not someone else!

[El Gato]

But the NBC part of the argument, if that is what it was, was not necessary to the final decision, which is completely covered by the 14th amendment. Thus the NBC part is dicta. Dicta creates no precedent.

Folks that go read the case will see that the question was:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

And the ruling was:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The ruling is not the same as the opinion. The ruling creates precedence.

[Mr Rogers]

“Dicta” is not binding, but in the case of WKA, it IS influential. Judges don’t write it for fun, but to advance a case in the law. And WKA has been cited and used many times.

For the Supreme Court to ignore that ‘dicta’ and make up a new argument would be to upset over 100 years of precedence - because well reasoned arguments used in decisions for 100+ years creates precedence.

[DoughtyOne]

Well his grandmother stated she was there (in Kenya) when he was born. Kenyan officials seemed to verify that until word from on high came down.

They still celebrated his birthday in his “home town” too.

Very curious...

[DoughtyOne]

short form

Where is the original documentation? Where is the hospital where he was born listed on that forum?

We know that Dunham was in Africa as little as two weeks before he as born.

We know that his grandmother stated she was present when he was born in Kenya.

This forum just doesn’t cut it as an official document. And when you realize that Hawaii allowed people to make declarations so their children could be deemed citizens, this all gets very dicey.

[edge919]

If I’m the one who is delusional, why does your side always lose at court?

You know the answer to that. The courts have used procedural crutches to avoid allowing a full trial and they have made demonstrably false statements in dismissing the cases.

And the entire government supports Lakin’s deployment, so it is NOT just the act of the President.

This is one of those arguments from stupidity like whoever said a comment in an interview = a news release. Obama is the CinC. He ordered more troops to Afghanistan as part of his administration's strategy. His authority is in question and can be proven to be legitimate or not. Whether the rest of the government 'supports' that mission is moot. The chain of command specifically goes through the office of POTUS.