Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
If the Constitution is dead, it won’t be because an officer can’t pick which orders to obey (pre-deployment leave) and which to disobey (deployment) based on Internet rumors.
It will be from the moral weakness of a society that repeals DADT, which was already a weakening of morality. It will be from the moral weakness that accepts sex without marriage, and rewards the lazy with benefits taken by force from those working to provide for their families.
But not because an idiot believed the military should determine who the President of the USA is or is not...
That's about the gist of it.
Addition to my question: Is it simply a fit of narcissistic pique? You will NOT question The One?
His motives relate to his perception of the lawfulness of the orders he chose to disobey. His actions were not random.
See my post just above, but you're referring to what is known as "collateral disabilities". And, they vary from state to state. But as I said, most states will only view conviction at GCM as a federal felony conviction if there's a correlating civilian crime - like rape, assault, murder, etc. Crimes that are purely of a military nature, like missing movement and failure to obey, are generally not viewed as felony convictions. But again, it varies in each state.
Because of federal laws, he will not be able to pass the Brady Background check because he was found guilty or pleaded guilty to charges that could have sentenced him to confinement for longer than 1-year.
Whether he can keep the weapons he already owns, or buy them legally privately, is entirely dependent on the state in which he lives. But - again generally - he shouldn't have any problems keeping what he has, or buying privately given the nature of his offense.
Unless he votes for Al Franken.
This makes me literally sick to my stomach.
Wanna know what’s ironic? Obama isn’t supposed to even be able to get a federal paycheck without showing his birth certificate.
No, one has nothing to do with the other. One cannot refuse an order to report to a superior's office and use questions about the President as an excuse. It wouldn't matter what Obama did or didn't do.
SCOTUS is not going to hear the case of a soldier who pled guilty to disobeying orders that he admitted were lawful, nor will Congress investigate Lakin’s case. Lakin was done when he pled guilty.
I am all for taking a case to SCOTUS on the issue of BO’s illegitimate pResidency, but Lakin’s case will not do it.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/07/taking-aka-obama-directly-before-scotus.html
He plead guilty to four specifications on charge No. II, but not guilty to charge No. I. He was not allowed to challenge the lawfulness of his orders, so there are different issues he could file suit over.
>If you believe that POTUS is invalid then you resign. Period.
Yeah, that’ll work really well if you’re ENLISTED and under LEGAL CONTRACT!
Sheeesh.
Yep. Soros has an evil soul IMO.
What Barry wanted. An example. Vindictive little weasel. That’s the bottom line. How anyone can support that “man” at this point is beyond my ken. He claims he’s eligible. He claims he has a valid birth certificate that proves it. Why, then, will he destroy this patriot’s life and career, putting aside ALL the good the man has done, simply because he chooses not to be made to show the proof he contends that he has? Is that the kind of person you want as leader of this nation? As your commander in chief? A petty, spiteful man, who will NOT be questioned?
“He was convicted because Denise Lind ruled that valid Presidential authorization is irrelevant to the authority to issue combat deployment orders.”
No. She ruled that the President of the United States and those underneath him have authority, and that authority continues until someone shows the proper authority (Congress) evidence that Obama is not the President. Therefor, otherwise lawful orders remain lawful orders, pending Obama’s Constitutional removal by Congress.
Until proper authority removes him, he IS the President. And a court martial board lacks Constitutional authority to investigate or act. THAT RESPONSIBILITY lies with Congress!
Thanks....
“He was not allowed to challenge the lawfulness of his orders...”
Actually, he stated in court that the orders WERE lawful, and that he was wrong to disobey them. That is tough to appeal.
And anybody knows that if the person authorizing the troop surge is not Constitutionally able to “act as President” the troop surge is just as unlawful as invading Iran.
The AUMF gave “the President” the authority to use force in the war on terrorism, as the War Powers Act authorizes Congress to do. So the lawful authorization for the use of force absolutely hinges on the decision of “the President”. Someone who is not able to “act as President” can not make that decision.
Unless someone who is able to “act as President” gives the authorization, the surge is just as unlawful as an unauthorized invasion of Iran.
The fact that an unauthorized invasion of Iran would be immediately recognized by all as unlawful just means that it’s crazy for people to say Lakin can’t decide for himself which orders are lawful, that he’d have to have a ruling by a court before he could know which orders were lawful, or that presidential authorization is irrelevant.
When people say that the case of Iran would be so obvious it just reveals how obvious it should be if an unconstitutional usurper pretended to authorize combat operations. For Lind to say it doesn’t even matter? That is so beyond the pale it’s beyond words.
The court already ruled that his questions of lawfulness were irrelevant prior to the trial ... and we weren't talking about appeals, but civil lawsuits.
You signed up in November 2010
to post this?
TROLL ALERT!
GET THE VIKING KITTIES!!
And when the people in the military are ordered to slaughter US citizens, ... ?
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.