Posted on 12/14/2010 9:25:59 AM PST by Smokeyblue
An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has pleaded guilty to 1 of 2 charges against him.
At a court-martial proceeding Tuesday in Maryland, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., pleaded guilty to not meeting with a superior when ordered to do so and not showing up at Fort Campbell in Kentucky where he was supposed to report.
(Excerpt) Read more at wkrn.com ...
Aw, come on. You just took all the fun out of everything. I was hoping for some more collateral damage from the Birther Narrative. /s
These same folks don’t have a problem chasing down the birth certificates of service members. What’s wrong with one more??
If a Larkin had succeeded in some way in Germany while people still thought that Hitler was just a charismatic leader with a very compelling speaking style millions would have lived. Expect that Obama will most likely rise before his fall, especially since most people have so very little discernment.
Larkin is doing his best to defend the Constitution that he is took an oath to defend. Defending the Constitution is the first priority in the oath. Taking orders is the second. Since there is a conflict between keeping both parts of the oath defending the Constitution is his first proper and duty. Obama, the usurper, is a clear and present danger to our country and also an illegal breaker of the Constitution.
Larkin is a true hero. He had everything to lose by doing what he did. He did it for our Country and our Constitution. May The LORD bless him.
Why are birthers so quick to compare our military to Nazis?
This doesn’t compare the military to Nazis. The Army of Germany was not Nazis, though they had to obey orders from people who were.
Certainly Obama as a Senator was to the left of Bernie Saunders, a Socialist. I am not sure what is to the left of Socialism in the US, but in prewar Germany the left consisted of Socialists, National Socialists, and Communists. Pick your poison.
Why did the SecDef ask the POTUS to commit additional troops? Wasn’t the SecDef authorized to make decisions on how much force to use where? Did the SecDef have the statutory authority to deploy those additional 30,000 troops BEFORE the POTUS agreed to commit additional troops? What statute would give the SecDef authority to deploy the troops after Presidential approval, and what statute requires the President’s approval first?
The elements of lawfulness under Article 90 refer to the authorization - that is, the legal authority.
I don’t care who actually GIVES the order. What matters for Article 90 purposes is who or what AUTHORIZES the person to give the order. If the President’s approval is needed in order for 30,000 extra troops to be sent into combat operations, then the authority to send those individual soldiers comes from the President.
Without the President’s action, no authority to send those troops exists for that brigade commander.
We can see that clearly in the case of Iran. If the President doesn’t give authority/approval to send combat troops to Iran, the brigade commanders’ authority to deploy those troops doesn’t exist - and any such orders they gave would not be lawful because they wouldn’t meet criteria ii under lawfulness for Article 90.
If I’m remembering correctly, Obama did give an order for 30,000 additional troops. He signed it after Obama asked if there were any objections, the military commanders said they approved, and Joe Biden simply asked if that was Obama’s final decision (after Biden had been arguing against a surge all along).
That is a statement of fact, not of law.
It is also clear that no housewife handcuffed Obama and carried him to the nuthouse. Therefore, because I noted that fact, housewives MUST have the legal authority to handcuff Obama and carry him to the nuthouse?
That conclusion would be unsupported.
The CRS said the authority to vet the Presidential eligibility belongs to the states, as edge919 pointed out.
Once the states are done and Congress has certified the official tally of electoral votes and declared the electoral winner, there is STILL one more eligibility step before the President elect can assume the duties and powers of the presidency. Between the electoral certification and Jan 20th, if it hasn’t already been done, the President elect needs to “qualify”.
Congress and the states are already done with their chapter in the saga; at that point it’s just the candidate and the Constitution, with no body or branch designated as the determiner of whether the Pres elect “qualified”. In Constitutional terms, then, Article III says that the federal judiciary has the responsibility of deciding all cases that arise from the Constitution or laws. Multiple cases were brought forward, at all points in the process - beginning before Obama was even the DNC candidate and continuing even now.
The issue of interpreting the 20th Amendment and applying it to the 2008 presidential election is not, in any way, shape, or form, a political question. There is no body or branch of government other than the federal judiciary which is given even the AUTHORITY to decide this issue, much less the actual, expressed RESPONSIBILITY to decide it.
In what way are orders to report to Kentucky as the first leg in a combat deployment to Iran (absent valid Presidential approval) less valid that those to fall out for lunch?
It is VERY interesting that Lind didn’t call the testimony by the wife of the doctor who deployed in Lakin’s place “irrelevant”. Lind, the defense, and everybody else who’s honest knows that this was about deployment orders. If it wasn’t about deployment, then that testimony was TOTALLY out of line as irrelevant. So it’s in the record that we’re talking about orders to deploy for combat operations in a foreign country - not just falling out for lunch.
You keep mentioning Iran.
He was ultimately bound for Afghanistan.
Where does Iran enter the picture?
I can’t view it myself, but if it’s labeled correctly, this would Obama announcing his Presidential order. I can see reports saying that he ordered the surge, and there was an in-depth article regarding the process of deciding which concluded with Obama signing the order. But I can’t find anyplace where the actual thing he signed is shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1k69XbMKrA
Already answered at #816.
Thanks for the reference. I’ll look that up after I get done playing for a funeral this morning.
What if the only witness to LBJ’s Presidential oath of office refused to say whether a lawful oath was in fact, taken, and the video footage the witness says she took was not allowed to be shown to anybody because LBJ said the video made him look fat?
At that point would LBJ have been LEGALLY able to act as CINC? Who would determine that, and what procedure would they use to determine that?
Your’re not listening or you’re not reading anything I’ve provided. And you’re taking the authorization theory to an extreme. Take it further to the extreme and then Congress is the only authority. Without Congress’s action, no authority exists for the President.
Brigade commanders cannot issue deployment orders. The SECDEF must do that.
What if monkeys shot out of my butt?
Larkin is a hero? Who the hell is Larkin?
Gene Larkin is my hero. He hit the single that won game 7 of the 1991 world series, still the greatest series ever played.
“If she was correctly applying military law then she should have referenced ii under the elements of lawfulness for Article 90”
How do you know that this is correct?
Have you tested this idea?
Then we’d either rush you to the emergency room or maybe get some killer video footage for YouTube.
Not sure which.
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.