Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
“If any” is added because without it, it would be saying that the VP is telling Congress that they have to object.
Gore asked if there were any objections. There weren’t any but they spent 20 minutes with people trying to submit written objections that didn’t qualify.
Did Gore not know what the rule meant?
There was a time within which the call for objections had to be made. It was to be done before Jan 20, 2009. It wasn’t. The process didn’t happen. By what you’re saying, it’s too late now. The time when the legal process should have happened is gone so the game is over. We have no winner because the vote count was never completed.
And not one Obama supporter was able to get the election legally certified. Not one.
You assume wrong. I spent most of my adult life as a commissioned Naval officer, active duty and reserve.
...; as the military makes such a big deal about the qualifier “LAWFUL” in its briefings to the enlisted.
Indeed it does. In fact, it goes farther than making a big deal but actually defines it. According to the Manual of Courts Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act..." - like reporting to the office of your brigade commander or reporting for duty with another unit - "...may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." The MCM provides a single qualifier: "This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order such as one that directs the commission of a crime." The MCM also states who will decide if an order is lawful or not: "[t]he lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by a military judge." Nothing gives Lakin the power to decide on his own if an order is lawful or not, absent any obvious criminal aspect to it. It does provide that the order "must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order." And that is the only constitutional clause mentioned, and nothing in the orders that Lakin disobeyed interfered with his constitutional rights. So by any rule or regulation you would care to name, Lakin disobeyed the lawful order of his commanding officer. And he will suffer the consequences.
The vote count was completed. To deny that is to simply become the same as one of those deadenders denying that Bush was ever President. If it makes you feel better, by all means, but its a proposition that won't be taken seriously in the real word. Advancing it simply impeaches the credibility of whatever evidence it is you believe you have.
You may want to defer to Shark’s expertise. According to him, when he was in the Reserves he had the absolutely unique experience of having a Sergeant tell him to shut up. It pissed him off. (LOL)
Well if it happened him today he could just tell the sergeant, "Since Obama is not the legitimate president then your order for me to shut up is an unlawful order and I am not bound to obey it." I'm sure that any NCO would see the logic in that argument.
Which is a legally-required procedure: the call for objections, or the objections themselves? According to the rules what HAD to be done?
Especially considering the posters tag line, must be for show cause he/she is here defending the enemy.
You are wasting your time here with these trolls...there just here to wear you down, eff em.
Go away, noobie!
So then basically it says “if there is any question about the legality of orders then you are to assume they are legal.”
Interesting; what about the order to the soldier who recorded video of the Ft Hood shootings who was given an order to delete them?
Consider that the official investigation wouldn’t have had the time to subpoena the video by the time the order came around, also the laws regarding the destruction of evidence.
Is it therefore reasonable to assume that because the order wasn’t destroying what was officially listed as evidence it was a legal order?
The objections themselves.
It’s conceptually no different than your instant replay analogy. Just because no one asked for the replay review on any given play doesn’t undermine the final game result, even if it looks in retrospect like a play was called wrong.
Sure thing Mr Alinsky.
Yeah, you’re probably right. Except the eff em part. I don’t think I’d want to do that. lol. But my time is probably better spent on other things right now. Thanks for the gentle nudge. =)
You are exactly right.
But you’re supposed to ASSUME that unless the orders are BLATANTLY illegal that the orders are valid, no?
(Besides which, how many young enlisted-grunts are going to know the details about laws regarding evidence?)
>Especially considering the posters tag line, must be for show cause he/she is here defending the enemy.
LOL — Good catch! :)
But the fact that you say not one freaking word about her work shows that you are a disgusting troll who is here to enable 0thugga’s coup.
Wrong, I didn't say anything because I've found over the years that conspiracy people aren't very good listeners. Also, I notice that mistakenly generating false conspiracy theories on a complete lack of evidence seems to be right up your alley.
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.