Military law by LTC William Winthrop
Deputy Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army, 1886
Just a few snippets...
=====================
=====================
=====================
Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
Do you see how you are going to great lengths to find reasons to reject anything that doesn't support your suppositions? Such as focusing on a few photos that lend themselves to misinterpretation while ignoring photos that do not.
This is likely at least one reason why you never feel like you are getting anywhere. Anything you learn that doesn't support your presumptions is rejected, attributed to either conspiracy or corruption or perhaps taken as proof that you are being actively opposed in your efforts rather than that you are simply mistaken.
At this rate, why should anyone take you seriously when you say that if only you were to get this next thus-and-so you'd be satisfied if it wasn't in your favor?
Under which he is being tried. If the CiC has no legit authority, then neither does the MCM.
Congress isn't in charge of the Military. The President is. Honest... It's in the Constitution. Read it. Congress declares war and holds the purse strings, that is all. The Prez is the CiC. Full stop.
And I was in the Marines. I know what point you are trying to make. I just think you are dead wrong and using horrible logic to boot.
Er... So I'm told.
LOL
You simply don't like the answer. Your response is emotional, not fact or logic based.
2000 years ago the prevailing wisdom was that the Earth was flat. This despite facts and even logic.
Experts these days frequently aren't and what the general consensus comes up with is the most twisted and illogical crap ever devised by a human mind. No. Sorry. I don't care how many people line up and insist 2+2=5.
So just because people thought the Earth was flat 2000 years ago, serious people are supposed to respect your refusal to read? The language in the Constitution is clear and unambiguous to anyone who has that skill. You can even find discussions explaining Congress’ role written by the Founding Fathers.
I knew a crusty old Marine once who told my officer this classic: “It’s one thing to be ignorant, son. It’s another altogether to advertise it. But to be proud of it? ****, I’ve got more use for a ******* sand bag than you!”
You think I’m grasping at straws because I’m looking at what Factcheck actually posted?
I have an evidence-based epistemology and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
What photos am I ignoring?
Argument from authority. A logical fallacy.
And by adding the “COMPETENT military law source” you also exhibit the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy.
Let me know when you come up with a citation for when Congress authorized military officers to “use appropriate force” independently of the President, and which officers they authorized.
I would say just about anything beats uninformed paranoid delusion.
“Let me know when you come up with a citation for when Congress authorized military officers to “use appropriate force” independently of the President, and which officers they authorized.”
Sigh... Does anyone but you think that's clever?
How about you let me know in what fantasy world that silly question has any relevance to the actual Constitutional and legal issues at hand. Or. alternatively, ask me some question that's not in the vein of “When did you stop beating your wife with a halibut in Nova Scotia?”
>>The MCM is an executive order...
>
>Under which he is being tried. If the CiC has no legit authority, then neither does the MCM.
You make a good point here, Dead Corpse. Pascal put it this way “Not even the most equitable of men is allowed to be judge of his own cause.” That is precisely what we have here:
The authority to hold a Court Marital is an Executive Order, which tired_old_conservative admits; and since this court martial will be held under the executive order which Obama has signed, whose very legitimacy to be the President is in question, it amounts to having Obama judge his own case. (Yes, there are levels of indirection; however, the principal remains the same.)
>Congress isn’t in charge of the Military. The President is. Honest... It’s in the Constitution. Read it. Congress declares war and holds the purse strings, that is all. The Prez is the CiC. Full stop.
I think Dead Corpse has you there tired_old_conservative; The constitution gives the Congress the power to fund the Army [and limited at that], the power to declare war, and the power to “call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union and repel invasion.”
No one said Congress is Commander in Chief. Read Article 1, Section 8 in its entirety. Congress does more than declare war and fund. That's why the UCMJ is written by Congress and the statutory roles and responsibilities of the Defense Department are written by Congress. Defining how the military is organized and functions is part of civilian rule. And it is ultimately a legislative function under the Constitution.
You guys have made a fetish of the words “commander in chief” and assume that overrides everything else in the Constitution. it doesn't. That's why there is an Article 10 in Federal Law. And it really does matter. Seriously—it's the law, which is the issue at hand here.
Again, Judge Lind laid it out clearly in her ruling. No military lawyer disagrees. Lakin got some very bad advice from his first attorney, who had no background in military law. His new attorney, who does, has stated Judge Lind is correct and he is pursuing other strategies to salvage Lakin’s career, as he should.
I’m asking for a simple citation that would show Congress has authorized military officers to “use appropriate force” independently of the President, which Lind’s entire argument rests upon.
If that’s too much to ask, there’s a serious problem here, and it’s not me.
Lind should have known that it’s not enough to say that Congress authorizes SOME orders. What she has to show is that Congress authorized THESE orders to be given independently of the President. She should have cited the appropriate Congressional authorization for THESE orders, showing they are authorized independently from the President.
Why do you think she didn’t do that?
Military law by LTC William Winthrop
Deputy Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army, 1886
Just a few snippets...
=====================
=====================
=====================
As for what photos? Take your pick.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_6.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
Note that you can zoom to view them in greater detail.
Ask TOC how he defines “Competent military law source” and I think you’ll find that it’s not “One who agrees with his position” as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy requires.
Lind's entire argument doesn't rest on that. She does not say that military officers can take action independent of the President. She does not say that Congress can authorize individual officers to attack countries. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject that you have.
If that’s too much to ask, there’s a serious problem here, and it’s not me.
There is no serious problem. You're misinterpretation of what Judge Lind said leads you to this nonsense question.
Lind should have known that it’s not enough to say that Congress authorizes SOME orders. What she has to show is that Congress authorized THESE orders to be given independently of the President. She should have cited the appropriate Congressional authorization for THESE orders, showing they are authorized independently from the President.
Lind doesn't say that Congress authorized SOME orders. Linda doesn't say that Congress gives any direct orders to the military. Lind says that Congress has defined the Defense Department's roles and responsibilities and the way in which the armed forces legally operate. Congress has authorized not individual orders, but the legality of giving orders and the legal requirement for obedience to orders.
When she talks about independent statutory authority, she is talking about the legal structure of the armed forces. That has been established by Congress. It has the Constitutional power to do so, and has done so in Article 10 of the United States code. Among other provisions Article 10 requires the Secretary of the Army to establish the authority of officers to give orders. That has been done in Army Regulations. Officers in the Army are this legally required to obey the orders of a superior officer provided those orders don't essentially require the commission of a crime. Period. That legal requirement exists whether the President is eligible or not. It has statutory authority whether the President is eligible or not. Lakin's superior officer has no obligation to justify the order to deploy in any way.
It is the role of Congress to determine if the question of the President's eligibility should be raised. Until it does so, the President is presumed lawful and would be operating under the de facto officer doctrine anyway. In our system of government, once a President's election is verified by Congress and he is inaugurated, that's it. Individual members of the military don't get to independently decide if their civilian rule meets their personal interpretation of the Constitution. If you want that, go live in Turkey.
That's also the same reason we didn't get to quit fighting in Vietnam until someone proved to us there was a Constitutionally legitimate authorization of that war. Which, by the way, is a potentially valid question. But that wasn't our call. And legal orders remained legal orders. The reason for that is the exact one Lind cites.
Why do you think she didn’t do that?
Because no one in the Legislative, Executive or Judicial Branch, or the military specifically, has ever contemplated anything working in the fashion you describe. The question you ask is, from a legal perspective, gibberish.
“Ask TOC how he defines “Competent military law source” and I think you’ll find that it’s not “One who agrees with his position” as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy requires.”
I think you’ll find that’s correct.
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.
