Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
P.S. That stuff definitely is not an election winner. Keep it in the closet. Damned the constitution. Just care about the next election. Is that what you think? Might as well be a Democrat.
That's true, but also irrelevant.
It is he that hopefully will get what he deserves. Anyone who thinks for one minute that he should not have to show his long form birth certificate needs to be deprogrammed because their thinking is extremely convoluted and they have fallen from their senses.
I agree with you on that as well. But that is also irrelevant to the charges Lakin is facing.
Citeless, sourceless, quoteless, and finally you are pointless.
The Constitution makes Obama CiC. The USMJ sets out the chain of command with your usurper buddy at it's very top. The MCM is PUBLISHED and ENFORCED under Zero's Executive Orders. And finally, documentation from historical military manuals showing that all of the above makes the President the font from which all military officer authority flows.
And yet you still run around like a brain-dead liberal saying, "That's not what it says! That's not what it says!" Even though that is EXACTLY what it says.
Silly troll... DU is that way ---->
You don't build a house like our military on shifting sand. You build it on solid rock. That rock is supposed to be the Constitutional and civil authority of the duly elected President.
Larkin's question is germane in that it would validate that authority as well as the process.
This kangaroo court is doing the exact opposite.
When a soldier, silor, airman or marine is LAWFULLY ordered to deploy, you deploy. Isn’t that what you meant? Or do you want to cast aside the rule of law, throw out Article 92?
It’s crazy that Lakin would even stand a chance of being found guilty of an Article 92 violation, because Article 92 is exactly what protects military personnel from being charged when they refuse to obey UNLAWFUL orders. Article 92 is a standard that cuts both ways. It cannot be used to punish somebody for disobeying UNLAWFUL orders.
It’s an if-then. If the order is lawful, it must be obeyed. If it’s not lawful, it must be disobeyed. If it’s not known whether it is lawful or not, what I’ve been told is supposed to happen is the order is obeyed and a request is made to clarify the lawfulness of the orders.
Lakin did that. The military refused to investigate the lawfulness of the orders. Lakin has done what he was supposed to do in this context. To find him guilty would be unconscionable.
If “the President” isn’t the one using force, then it’s somebody who is not authorized to use force, because Congress only gave that authorization to “the President”. The lawfulness of all those orders by lower officers depends on whether force was authorized by a valid President.
Even if, say, I were to pull on some BDUs after getting a little line of stars for the rank patch and a haircut, then eith my forged orders giving me command of some unit order that unit to go to AZ and enforce border-security with extreme prejudice? The content of the orders would be justified by the Constitution itself:
ART 4, SECTION. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL
PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application
of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
So then, the only thing that could invalidate those orders is their origin:
someone taking a command position who is unauthorized to do so.
Would those orders be legitimate?
If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?
Well B, it’s good that we can be clear about where we differ.
Read more carefully. The closet comment is not referring to the birther issue in general. It was referring to the openly racist sentiments expressed by the previous poster in that chain. Unless you share them, I would think it wise not to associate yourself with them.
Lakin’s orders would be especially difficult for an honest judge to get around because Congress specifically stated that the authority to “use appropriate force” was given only to “the President”.
How can a judge claim that the President is irrelevant to the orders implementing force, when the law itself says that only the President can implement force?
Lind totally ignored that issue. Just like she totally ignored the actual elements of Article 92.
It’s a travesty. As a lot of us here can easily recognize.
The truth may be irrelevant in the courts of man but not in the eyes of God nor in the eyes of any decent minded human being. To any judge or court with wisdom and not just dead "relevant fact" these truths would also weigh in. The courts true duty is to dispense justice not just go by procedure which can be lacking. It is The LORD who knows all things and looks at the heart who will ultimately decide how this will be played out in history and His justice will be dispensed.
Obama is less than slime allowing such a patriot to suffer because he refuses to bring forth his long form birth certificate. A true Commander in Chief would realize that his duty lies with protecting his troops and their honor. Could you ever imagine Bush allowing this to happen for any reason. His not bringing it forth weighs in heavily on the fact that he is not a natural born citizen, nor a proper Commander in Chief, and shows merit to the fact that Larkin has reason to question his Constitution right to give the military orders as the legal Constitutional President and Commander in Chief. People forget that Larkin's loyalty lies to the Constitution first. He is a true patriot and hero. May the LORD of all vindicate him.
Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Jhn 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
Jhn 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
I wasn't aware that He had expressed an opinion on the matter.
>>The truth may be irrelevant in the courts of man but not in the eyes of God nor in the eyes of any decent minded human being
>
>I wasn’t aware that He had expressed an opinion on the matter.
Is. 5:20 [KJV]
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Proverbs 17:5 [KJV]
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Micah 6:8 [Young’s Literal Translation]
He hath declared to thee, O man, what is good; Yea, what is Jehovah requiring of thee, Except — to do judgment, and love kindness, And lowly to walk with thy God?
How, Oh Non-Sequitur, can there be justice without truth?
I should also say that the Isiah reference speaks directly to calling true the truth.
It’s a constant temptation for people to conflate their desires and the redress of their personal sense of grievance with the will of God.
As the Bible says, humility leads to wisdom. It lifts the blinding veil of our own self-centered consciousness.
[thread ping]
I’ve put together a scenario which illustrates the basic problem; I’m particularly interested in the answers to the two final questions.
Now, let’s say that I ordered the unit to go to the southern AZ border and enforce the border-security with lethal force. These orders are themselves authorized by the Constitution of the United States, to wit:
Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
So then, the only variable concerning the validity of the given orders is the person who is issuing them; in this scenario: me. As in mathematics I have isolated the variable in question, which is that of origin: do those orders which originate from an unqualified source, even if in complete agreement with the Constitution, still carry LAWFUL authority?
That is to say, would those orders be legitimate?
If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?
Keeper....book marked. Outstanding.
Thanks !
You could dress up in a clown suit for all the legal authority you'd have issuing orders. You'd be an imposter, a fake, and so would any orders you handed down.
If not, then why are Obama’s orders legitimate?
Because this isn't the America you grew up in. This is the twisted and sick America. This is the America where white guilt and PC elected a criminal. This is the America that nazi Soros bought and paid for.
*nod* - You fully grasp the situation.
Under the scenario presented , if a soldier killed someone the military would hold that person guilty of murder as the orders were unlawful even if the soldier did not know so.
Any order given by obama is unlawful and should not be obeyed.
After world war II we put to death soldiers who were just obeying orders, because we considered those orders unlawful
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.