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
That'll be the day!
They also took the word of the Republican Gov. of Hawaii that he was born in HI.
I think so.
I mean here I am trying to get resolution on something that’s really not “too big an issue” and is clearly cut and failing miserably; now consider that the top people in EVERY branch now have an interest in NOT admitting they didn’t do their job:
> Congress certified the electoral votes for Obama, as well as Pelosi signing an affidavit to his eligibility,
> The USSC {well chief justice} swore him in,
> and the executive, Obama and those close to him, obviously doesn’t want to be humiliated.
If it were to come out that he wasn’t qualified, it is conceivable that members of ALL of these groups could be charged with Treason; for what could give more aid and comfort to the enemies of America then invalidating the legitimacy of a whole branch of its government, undermining the integerity of ALL three branches of government, *AND* making all military actions carried out under the authority of Obama VERY legally questionable {read illegitimate}.
Everybody cries for recovery and stimulation of the economy, I would say that trying to restore to order every second of the usurper in Chiefs decisions would create a lot of new jobs.
America can fix itself in short order, prolonging it is much much worse and sustaining the lies for generations will hurt our country more so than bringing truth to everything.
Sometimes the hardest decision is best, taking the easy way out is cowardness.
Better this mess then the loss of our freedoms, our country - if America falls, there is NO nation to save her.
Individual freedom will be gone - forever.
Freedom isn't free - we may have to fight mightily to keep it.
>They also took the word of the Republican Gov. of Hawaii that he was born in HI.
And? Why should I trust the Governor of Hawaii?
She never claimed to be at Obama’s birth. Obama’s grandmother, however, has... and she also claimed that it was in Kenya.
In a court of law the former would be thrown out as ‘hearsay’ while the latter would be considered an eye-witness testimony.
If I were a judge, I would consider it a feather in my hat for having done the right thing, and making sure our Constitution was lived up to, by the letter of the law.
Where does this member of the military go to seek relief, if not the courts?
This court has every right to permit discovery and rule the member of the military does or does not have a valid case. That is not removal of a president. It is a matter of the rule of law, and something courts do every day.
We sit here in a state of limbo, a person who may or may not be qualified to be president. And so far, every branch of our government has taken a pass on upholding the Constitution of the United States.
Is that document still there? Does it still wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I’ve seen very little evidence of that in the last decade.
I’m willing to risk it ... ;-)
I and a few million other people must have missed that, could you please show me when and where Congress ruled on his eligibility?
Realworld 101.
He never received an order from President Obama.
His charges stem from disobaying an order from a supperior officer.
That makes his excuss not pertenant to the case.
Even if Obama is inelegible, the senior officer that actually did give him his orders was perfectly legal in doing so and his actions in refusing them are criminal under UCMJ.
His actions in inciting mutney in a time of war could carry the death sentance if the authorities wished to push it.
Unless the services have the right to proceed autonomously, the buck for anything they do stops with the CIC, which purportedly is Obama.
***Question: From whence does an officer gain his authority to issue a command to a soldier?***
Good question. A lot of posts refer to *refusing orders from a superior officer*.
Wonder how that would have been handled if a young Ft. Hood corporal had refused to help Maj.Hasan Nidal load his weapon.
>Because he is defined as a civilian Commander in Chief. He is, by definition a civilian, not a member of the military.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? The Constitution I have reads:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States [...]”
Nothing there about him being a *CIVILIAN* at all.
>As for the Constitutional right to be President, I would guess that where it says that anyone who is a natural born citizen of the United States and has attained the age of 35 is eligible to hold the office.
I would say that is quite correct.
>He is the elected President of the United States, until and unless he has been proven to be otherwise ineligible. Since Congress has already ruled on is eligiblity, the point is moot.
It is not moot, especially since we have indications of members of congress commuting fraud on this issue: namely Nancy Pelosi’s affidavit. Furthermore, a “ruling” by congress would do nothing to impact the eligibility of people born before it’s ruling: The Constitution expressly prohibits ex post facto laws. Furthermore, Congress only has power over defining the “rule[s] of immigration and naturalization” *NOT* for defining what a “Natural Born Citizen” is.
>Good question. A lot of posts refer to *refusing orders from a superior officer*.
>
>Wonder how that would have been handled if a young Ft. Hood corporal had refused to help Maj.Hasan Nidal load his weapon.
They would say “that’s different because the order was illegal!” without either explaining why such an order was illegal OR how [in the case of Obama not being Constitutionally eligible for President, and that the Constitution assigning the position of Commander-in-Chief to the President] it would be different than someone impersonating some officer and issuing commands to some enlisted soldiers.
There is no Constitutional right to be President. There never has been.
I think the general public has gotten fuzzy-minded on just what our "rights" are and are confusing "Constitutional" rights with "civil" rights. CONUS Amendments 1-10 say absolutely nothing about one's right to be POTUS. Some "legal thinkers" (who know what a natural born citizen really is and don't like it one bit as far as its being an Article II requirement) think that the NBC provision is "unfair" and "discriminatory" and therefore infringes on people's civil rights.
>Realworld 101.
>He never received an order from President Obama.
>His charges stem from disobaying an order from a supperior officer.
Question: From where does an officer gain the authority to issue orders to a subordinate?
Follow up: Are all orders legitimate?
>That makes his excuss not pertenant to the case.
Answer the above in such a way that authority does not “flow downhill” and then we’ll address this point.
>Even if Obama is inelegible, the senior officer that actually did give him his orders was perfectly legal in doing so and his actions in refusing them are criminal under UCMJ.
So then, if I were to impersonate an officer, say a full-bird Colonel, and ordered some troop movement [say from the barracks to bivouac point A for a training exercise] and the Major gave orders to the Captain of some company, who had reason to doubt I was a real Colonel, he would be completely unjustified to request assurance of the legitimacy of the orders?
>His actions in inciting mutney in a time of war could carry the death sentance if the authorities wished to push it.
The actions of the city council of Chicago, including the mayor thereof, as well as the police of that city, could legitimately be put to death for their violation of this law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html
{Or are you willing to assert that the false arrest of MacDonald and other inhabitants of Chicago for firearms is NOT a kidnapping made with the threat of the use of deadly force?}
>>What Constitutional Right is there to be President?
>
>There is no Constitutional right to be President. There never has been.
I quite agree; which is why I raised the question of its existence.
So going to ask a really stupid question,
Can we court martial the president for fraud?
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.