Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OneWingedShark
When you say, “PFC Lee, you and PFC Johnson start filling sandbags; SPC Garcia and SPC Smith will provide security from that hill,” you are turning into action the orders of the entire chain of command.

So would PFC Lee and PFC Johnson be in the right if they said, "Sir, I refuse to fill sandbags because I believe Obama is not qualified to be president" and would you support them if they did so?

And if the answer is 'yes' then is it your position that every order given by every officer and NCO in every branch of the military since noon on January 20,2001 has been illegal?

Check and mate.

Oh we're just warming up.

425 posted on 10/15/2010 4:17:54 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

I’ll let One Winged Shark answer for himself; probably should just let him answer because his answers are better than mine anyway, and he has more knowledge about the military.

My understanding is that they are all unlawful because they are all contrary to the Constitution. They must be obeyed because of the de facto officer doctrine because superficially Obama is being accepted as POTUS.

But Obama has never even LAWFULLY been certified as the winner of the electoral vote, which means the results of the election are still legally pending. At this point even if Obama was eligible the orders he’s given so far would be unlawful because neither Obama nor Biden “qualified” by Jan 20th since they had not been lawfully certified as the electoral winners.

IOW, Lakin can actually go beyond what he’s stated. He’s been asking IF Obama qualifies, when in fact we can know for certain that Obama at this point has NOT qualified. Knowing that to be the case, that may actually shift the balance to where there is a DUTY to disobey the orders. De facto officer only applies if it is not known that the person giving the orders is acting beyond their authority, correct? Once it is known that the person doesn’t lawfully hold the position, there is a duty to disobey, correct?


427 posted on 10/15/2010 5:32:48 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

I’ve already answered your questions previously on this thread.
I beat you soundly.
Screw off.


437 posted on 10/15/2010 7:47:38 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson