Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Lakin Sentenced
1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.
This is because the military brass along with many in the government know that the Lt. Col is correct. Political Correctness has now officially conquered our military and our Constitution has lost.
What does “total forfeiture” mean?
There was never any real evidence that G.W. Bush “stole” the election, there WAS evidence that the other party tried to steal it for Gore but failed to do so. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that Obama does not meet the constitutional test to be CIC. It is not the same nonsense at all.
The right type of soldier will soon come to mean a flaming homo at the top of the line of command. Obama hates the military, he’s out to wreck it.
OBEY YOUR ORDERS! DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY!
Ping!
Be prepared to take some heat, soldier.
FWIW, I’ve got your back.
He was convictred in a military court of violating a lawful order. (In fact, he pleaded guilty to that charge.) So, barring a reversal on appeal (extremely unlikely given his guilty plea and his sworn admissions to the judge), it is now conclusively determined against him that he violated lawful orders. So he was injured not by Obama's failure to answer questions, but by his own admitted criminal acts. See, for example, the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey (1994) (unreversed criminal conviction bars any civil suit for damages based on that claim that that conviction was wrongful).
I’d say pretty close, for attorneys
who practice military law.
In re the Bush-v-Gore case, the FACTS were heard by many levels of courts. In re Lakin, the facts were outlawed.
I feel so badly for Col. Lakin. I do think he was poorly advised. He did his duty as he saw it, as did the judge and the jury. I’m not about to condemn any of them. In the meanwhile, an honorable 20+ years career and its attendant retirement benefits down the drain. He’d have been better off years ago choosing private practice. But 6 months confinement is less than I’d expected.
BUT, as to your comment, the birth certificate is not really the issue, imho. It’s a red herring. The real Constitutional question is what was the intent and understanding of the Framers who inserted the language ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution for the Office of President only. The SCOTUS has never defined that phrase.
That question is a lot bigger than Obama or any single person. It is time the term be defined by the SCOTUS. Obama’s birth certificate could establish his ineligibility if it shows he was not born in the USA, but it alone would not establish his eligibility, based on his parentage.
We have a huge population of ‘anchor babies’ who may or may not meet the qualification under various interpretations. One definition (Vattel) would exclude them, and Obama, as both parents were not US citizens when they were born; that presents the dual allegiance issue the Framers wanted to avoid in the CinC.
IIRC, he will never be able to vote again either.
I guess under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” you kept your mouth shut.
Dr. Lakin gets my vote not keyboard sissies.
Quite right indeed. Because the poster wasn't agreeing with you.
No pay.
Gotta wonder what his DD-214 will look like.
The 20th Amendment doesn’t allow a usurper to “act as President”. If the President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified”. Unless the VP elect also fails to qualify by then.
IOW, the Constitution refuses to allow anyone to “act as President” without first “qualifying”.
And you’re missing the issue here: Denise Lind said that it is IRRELEVANT whether or not a President has authorized combat operations, when determining the lawfulness of combat deployment orders. IOW, an O5 or whatever can tell his troops to deploy IN DEFIANCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S WISHES, and the orders would still be lawful - if Lind’s reasoning is applied to all cases.
Is that really a service to this nation or its military, what Lind ruled?
I am not a military lawyer, but my understanding is that it means no pay, no benefits, no military health care for his family, no pension.
IOW, he should have waited until the usurper had thoroughly raped the nation and was out of office and THEN tried to do something to defend the US Constitution?
That makes no sense.
butter, the problem with your Iran theory is that such a deployment order would clearly be in violation of the War Powers Act and the AUMF. And anyone in the military would know that a brigade commander cannot issue deployment orders.
I guess under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” you kept your mouth shut.
And you kept yours open.
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.