LTC Lakin's Appeal Denied

U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals ^ | 10/12/10 | Clerk of the Court

[BuckeyeTexan]

On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.

[Las Vegas Ron]

All you need to know about jamses777.......

Watch it disappear.....

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

‘>If an absolute dictatorship is such a good idea who do you suggest be the Fuehrer, or Caesar?
I never said it was a good idea; I did however imply that it might be no less a horrible an idea than our current rule-by-bureaucrats.’

So given the choice between our current status and establishing an absolute dictatorship which do you prefer? I do not wish to derive my opinions based only on an implication.

[Las Vegas Ron]

You need to go back and study some history.

The Founders who were for the BOR wanted certain unalienable rights affirmed, they didn't feel the Constitution granted enough protection......John Jay who wrote the Constitution with Madison wouldn't sign without it witout them...

[little jeremiah]

I did not accuse you of being an enemy of the USA. I accuse anyone who consistently posts on FR for hours a day, many days a week, month after month after month, in support of 0thugga, and trashing those who are sincerely researching and discussing the truth of his ineligibility.

I am not naming any names; if the shoe fits, people can wear it. I am not accusing you personally. People who attack obviously sincere conservatives like Las Vegas Ron are immediately suspect.

I know good conservative freepers who are not interested in 0thugga’s eligibility, for whatever reason. They never, ever post on these threads; instead, they use their valuable time fighting leftist crap in other ways.

If people claim to be conservatives and therefore opposed to 0thugga’s agenda, methods and goals, and still post for hours and hours on these threads attacking sincere freepers, then it’s crystal clear whose side they are on. And it not the side that Constitutionalists are on.

[jamese777]

The 14th is fraudulent.

---

That’s a personal opinion.
The facts are that in the 142 years since the 14th Amendment was ratified, there has been NO attempt to ratify another amendment to invalidate the 14th.
When the People decided that they didn’t want the 18th Amendment any more, the elected representitives of the people in our Republic passed the 21st Amendment to render the 18th Amendment moot.
That could be done with the 14th, but it hasn’t been attempted.
Since the 14th Amendment was declared to have been officially ratified by Secretary of State William H. Seward in 1868, an additional 13 states have ratified it. The latest being the states of New Jersey and Ohio in 2003.

[Las Vegas Ron]

My arguement is solely against ron's vicious posting habits.

Vicious, lol lol lol....what kind of character or spine do you have???/

What a weak individual you must be, no wonder....why, I bet you're a moderate, right?

Geezzzz....grow up.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Yes, I know that. And once they were included, they became as much a part of the Constitution as any other part.

John Jay who wrote the Constitution with Madison wouldn't sign without it witout them...

I think it's you who needs to study some history. John Jay wasn't even AT the Constitutional Convention. He was among the Federalists, though, corresponding with Madison and Hamilton and writing parts of the Federalist Papers. It was the Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry who insisted on including the Bill of Rights before they'd ratify.

[bushpilot1]

Recent article in the Omaha World Herald regarding the 14th Amendment:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20101018/NEWS01/710189899/1014#janssen-14th-amendment-misapplied

[patlin]

If you can not discern the difference between the meaning/origin of a word and its function, there is nothing I can do to help your ignorance. Maybe you should have paid attention in language class!

[Danae]

Redacted scan ok?

[Las Vegas Ron]

If you believe Lakin is doing the right thing, then you ought to follow his example.

Okay, perhaps you have not remembered what I have had to say about this in the past so I'll repeat it now....no, I do not think what Lakin is doing is a good thing, the possible repercussions are very dangerous, but I support him because of his courage and convictions because I agree with him.

It is a very sad time in this Country when a man has to sacrifice himself for a cause he believes is just....many men have done it before, they choose a side and fight.....you have chosen your side.

You on the other hand lend your time to defeat him, you glorify his defeat at the cost of your Country....that I don't understand.

If you think this issue is a no go then leave it alone and let the rest of us figure out what the truth is........you have an agenda, it shows, because......?

Why don't you question what this man is hiding while he is destroying a Country you profess to love and supposedly fought for???????

[Celtic Cross]

"What a weak individual you must be, no wonder....why, I bet you're a moderate, right?"

You're the weak one...Nothing but an E-thug. Not just on this thread. Anyone can read your posting history and see what a jerk you are. And no, you gaffer, i'm not a moderate.

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

[bushpilot1]

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584; Senate Journal 1866, p. 471)

Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 68; Senate Journal 1866, p. 72.)

Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 76; Senate Journal 1866, p. 8)

Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213; Senate Journal 1866, p. 183)

North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 183; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 138)

Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291; Senate Journal 1866, p. 262

South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452)

Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. (House Journal 1867, p. 60; Senate Journal 1867, p. 62)

Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 101)

Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452)

Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 223; Senate Journal 1867, p. 176)

Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 1141; Senate Journal 1867, p. 808)

Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194)

Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868 (House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50; Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.)

New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. (Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743; Senate Journal 1868, p. 356)

[patlin]

“natural born citizens”..there are 3 words here. Congress translated the 1st 2 in 1781, 6 years prior to the drafting of the final version of the Constitution. Websters 1828 dictionary written for the constitution as well as a plethora of early law philosophers on civil law & government such as Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Pufendorf, Grotius, Montesquieu, Vattel, etc, etc(all of which are recorded in Congressional archives of the debates as references to be added to the US library for further reference on the law of nations as well as natural law) over the course of centuries, prior to even the 1st Constitution of England, defined the difference of the root meaning & origins of citizen & subject. The one who rules(citizen) & the other who is ruled(subject). Each word of the constitution has meaning according to Story & each word is to be defined by its original root origin that was common to the lay person & it was common to all that subject & citizen did not get their force from the same origins.

Natural born citizen in the Constitution is NOT put into “_”, they are individual words to be defined individually. Get the picture? You all want to define a phrase when there is none to define and that IS your problem.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

You didn’t express yourself clearly, that’s all. First you said we were talking about the root of the word, then you asked me if I thought the word had a function. Why would you ask me if I thought the word had a function if we’re talking about its root? Make up your mind. Actually, your latest reply is even more muddled. What do you mean by the function of a word, if not its meaning? Are you asking me about parts of speech?

Also, “meaning” and “origin” of a word are not the same thing, unlike what you imply. Or do you think the only real “citizens” are those who live in cities?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

My post above was to your previous post. I still have no idea why you think the origins of the words “subject” and “citizen” is relevant, or what support you think Story gives you for looking at the roots. Your posts are like a bunch of ideas chopped into a salad and offered for the reader to untangle. (For example, how can an 1828 dictionary have been written “for the constitution”? What does that even mean?)

[Las Vegas Ron]

Some good stuff here:

http://johnjay.net/

[Non-Sequitur]

Connecticut ratified on June 25, 1866
New Hampshire ratified on July 6, 1866
Tennessee ratified on July 19, 1866
New Jersey ratified on September 11, 1866
Oregon ratified on September 19, 1866
Vermont ratified on October 30, 1866
Ohio ratified on January 4, 1867
New York ratified on January 10, 1867
Kansas ratified on January 11, 1867
Illinois ratified on January 15, 1867
West Virginia, Michigan, and Minnesota ratified on January 16, 1867
Maine ratified on January 19, 1867
Nevada ratified on January 22, 1867
Indiana ratified on January 23, 1867
Missouri ratified on January 25, 1867
Rhode Island and Wisconsin ratified on February 7, 1867
Pennsylvania ratified on February 12, 1867
Massachusetts ratified on March 20, 1867
Nebraska ratified on June 15, 1867
Iowa ratified on March 16, 1868
Arkansas ratified April 6, 1868
Florida ratified on June 9, 1868
North Carolina ratified on July 4, 1868
Louisiana and South Carolina ratified on July 9, 1868 and the amendment was adopted.

The fact that New Jersey and Ohio later voted to rescind ratification is irrelevant. The Constitution does not give states the power to change their mind on ratification. The reasoning should be clear - one or two states today could rescind their vote and the First or Second Amendments could be stricken from the Constitution. Regardless, 9 more states voted to ratify after South Carolina. The 14th Amendment was ratified, it's legal, and it's part of the Constitution.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

Good, get lost then....if'n you can't stand the heat, git out er the kitchen.

You represent the epitome of weak in this Country, sniveling whiner little child.....stand up for your self and fight....you can't even defend yourself on a black and white anonymous screen.....

Good grief.

Oh, yeah......boooooooooo!

[jamese777]

Proposal and ratification
The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866, and, by July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) had ratified the amendment:

Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
Oregon (September 19, 1866)
Vermont (October 30, 1866)
Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
New York (January 10, 1867)
Kansas (January 11, 1867)
Illinois (January 15, 1867)
West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
Michigan (January 16, 1867)
Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
Maine (January 19, 1867)
Nevada (January 22, 1867)
Indiana (January 23, 1867)
Missouri (January 25, 1867)
Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
Iowa (March 16, 1868)
Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
Florida (June 9, 1868)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state’s withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.

Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:

Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was “approved” by the governor)
Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress’s assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.

There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the amendment had been ratified by all of the 37 states that were in the Union in 1868:
Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
Maryland (1959)
California (1959)
Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded it on February 20, 1868)
Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)

---

Supreme Court Decisions Based on the 14th Amendment
[edit] Citizenship
1884 – Elk v. Wilkins
1898 – United States v. Wong Kim Ark
1967 – Afroyim v. Rusk
1980 – Vance v. Terrazas
1982 – Plyler v. Doe

Corporate personhood
1886 – Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
[edit] Privileges or immunities
1868 – Crandall v. Nevada
1873 – Slaughter-House Cases
1908 – Twining v. New Jersey
1920 – United States v. Wheeler
1948 – Oyama v. California
1999 – Saenz v. Roe

Procedural due process/Incorporation
1833 – Barron v. Baltimore
1873 – Slaughter-House Cases
1883 – Civil Rights Cases
1884 – Hurtado v. California
1897 – Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago
1900 – Maxwell v. Dow
1908 – Twining v. New Jersey
1925 – Gitlow v. New York
1932 – Powell v. Alabama
1934 – Snyder v. Massachusetts
1937 – Palko v. Connecticut
1947 – Adamson v. California
1952 – Rochin v. California
1961 – Mapp v. Ohio
1962 – Robinson v. California
1963 – Gideon v. Wainwright
1964 – Malloy v. Hogan
1966 – Miranda v. Arizona
1967 – Reitman v. Mulkey
1968 – Duncan v. Louisiana
1969 – Benton v. Maryland
1970 – Goldberg v. Kelly
1972 – Furman v. Georgia
1974 – Goss v. Lopez
1975 – O’Connor v. Donaldson
1976 – Gregg v. Georgia
2010 – McDonald v. Chicago

Substantive due process
1876 – Munn v. Illinois
1887 – Mugler v. Kansas
1897 – Allgeyer v. Louisiana
1905 – Lochner v. New York
1908 – Muller v. Oregon
1923 – Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
1923 – Meyer v. Nebraska
1925 – Pierce v. Society of Sisters
1937 – West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
1973 – Roe v. Wade
1992 - Planned Parenthood v. Casey
1996 – BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
2003 – Lawrence v. Texas

Equal protection
1880 – Strauder v. West Virginia
1886 – Yick Wo v. Hopkins
1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
1908 – Berea College v. Kentucky
1917 – Buchanan v. Warley
1942 – Skinner v. Oklahoma
1944 – Korematsu v. United States
1948 – Shelley v. Kraemer
1954 – Hernandez v. Texas
1954 – Brown v. Board of Education
1962 – Baker v. Carr
1965 – Griswold v. Connecticut
1967 – Loving v. Virginia
1976 – Examining Board v. Flores de Otero
1978 – Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
1982 – Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
1986 – Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico
1996 – United States v. Virginia
1996 – Romer v. Evans
2000 – Bush v. Gore

Apportionment of Representatives
1974 – Richardson v. Ramirez
[edit] Power of enforcement
1883 – Civil Rights Cases
1966 – Katzenbach v. Morgan
1997 – City of Boerne v. Flores
2000 – United States v. Morrison
2001 – Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
2003 – Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
2004 – Tennessee v. Lane