Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
How do you figure?
It’s not over yet... he’s hardly a fool.
When you serve your country with such honor then you can speak.
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words. I have to return the compliment because you’ve provided a lot of factual information that has exposed with strong certainty the depth of the problems with Obama’s nativity claims and legitimacy, as well as some great information on military law. Cheers!
Unless and until he's ruled ineligible by the Judiciary (the branch of government responsible for interpreting the Constitution) or impeached, convicted, and removed from office by Congress (the branch of government responsible for removing a sitting President,) the military must, by law, accept Obama as the legal President and Commander in Chief.
When Congress passes a law that we believe is unconstitutional, we work through the Judiciary to have it overturned. We don't just disregard the law because we believe it's unconstitutional. We're bound by the law unless and until it is overturned. The same concept applies to Obama's eligibility.
We're a nation of laws. If you would have the military interpret the Constitution on their own rather than the Judiciary, then you don't respect the very Constitution that you claim to defend.
Interesting. Do you happen to recall if it made any mention of "dishonorable discharge" (FedGov looks at officer dismissal as a dishonorable, for practical purposes)?
It's not a foregone conclusion that Lakin already has a DEA number, as military medical doctors are not issued them as a matter of course. I wonder if the rules for losing a DEA number are the same as receiving a DEA number.
I know of at least one case where an officer was convicted at GCM but wasn't disbarred (which is unusual, to be sure). Of course, a conviction at GCM and dismissal virtually guarantees you won't be admitted to the bar. I wonder if the same is true for the DEA number.
Great Britain had begun that system of impressment of seamen from American merchant-vessels which was destined to result finally in war between the two nations. Seriously in need of men to aid in her struggle with France, and now unable to buy them from the German duchies, as she had done in the American war, she claimed the right to take British seamen wherever found, and to stop and search vessels on the high seas. At first, indeed, the claim was limited to deserters from the British service. But it was soon extended to cover British seamen, and finally to embrace all British subjects. Eventually the seamen on American merchantmen were obliged to prove on the spot that they were to American birth, or be subject to impressment. As early as the years 1796-7 applications were made in London for the release of two hundred and seventy-one seamen thus seized within nine months, most of them American citizens. It was later, however, before this evil grew so intolerable as to demand warlike redress.http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_II/britishim_jc.html
The New decision said, “If “lawfulness” is indeed an “essential element,” the accused in a military trial has a statutory right for the issue to be resolved by the members under Article 51. If, however, “lawfulness” is a question of law, it may be resolved by the military judge. The cases cited in the separate opinion, __ MJ at (6), support the role of the military judge in deciding issues of law, but do not authorize the military judge to withhold “essential elements” from the members.” Contrary to your accusation, no one made crap up.
Obviously that smackdown that Jim Robinson gave her a few days ago didn’t take.
Do you seriously believe that nobody in his administration, not Gibbs, not Gates, nobody, told him about the case?
I did answer.
Any branch, or brancheS, of the government which refuse to be bound by the Constitution COULD/SHOULD be overthrown by the military and/or the militia.
Unlike Lakin, when ordered to do so, I deployed.
The military court is part of the federal judiciary.
Lakin’s behavior makes no sense.
If you are going to take action as a matter of principle, you have to be ready to follow through to the end. Unfotunately he has now negated any good that might have come from his personal sacrifice.
Lakin did the job for two years and didn’t get answers. He got fed up and took an extreme course of action that unfortunately fell on deaf ears, blind eyes and cowardly hearts
~~~~~~~
God bless him, he sure did take all the steps available and known to him within the chain of command, to NO relief, help, answers, or direction for a long time .. NONE from ANY of his superior military officers nor even the military JAGs. On the contrary, he got agreement on his lack of belief in potus eligibility from some of them.
The 20th Amendment says that if a President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
So whether Obama is or isn’t the President is irrelevant to the issue of whether he can authorize combat operations.
To even BE the “President elect”, Congress had to already have certified him as the electoral winner. So the issue of “qualifying” is at that point beyond any authority or power that Congress has, if they ever even HAD any authority to judge someone’s Presidential qualifications.
IOW, even after the states are done with their role and after Congress is done with its role, there is still the hurdle of “qualifying”, which must be accomplished by Jan 20th if not before. There is no other branch of government that is given any authority or responsibility to determine whether the President elect and VP elect have “qualified” by Jan 20th. Therefore the Third Article applies, which says that all cases and controversies arising out of the Constitution or the law are to be decided by the federal judiciary.
There are cases within the federal judiciary that raise the issue of whether Obama can “act as President” according to the 20th Amendment. Only the federal judiciary - not the military - can decide those cases.
Lind has allowed the military to usurp the role of the federal judiciary. The military can’t interpret the Constitution and judge in matters of fact between Obama and Biden, to say which is to “act as President”. Furthermore, the military can’t decide whether Obama and Biden were ever even LAWFULLY declared to be the winners of the electoral vote, since Cheney didn’t ask for objections as required by law.
Article 92(1) - under which Lakin was charged - says that an order is not lawful if it is contrary to the Constitution. If the Constitution requires Joe Biden to “act as President”, then the authorization for Lakin’s deployment order was unconsitutional, thus making the order itself unauthorized.
The point: the Constitutionality of the authorization for the troop surge is critical to the lawfulness of Lakin’s deployment order.
When Lind denied Lakin the opportunity to defend himself on the grounds of unconstitutionality and unauthorized orders, she violated his due process and Sixth Amendment rights.
Regardless of how he pleaded, she denied him those rights, and that should allow him to file a lawsuit, if there’s any justice left in this country, which is probably not likely at this point.
So the US should go banana republic. You say the military should occupy the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court.
If I find any such info, I’ll ping you.
But you will also notice that the judge is not necessarily allowed to decide the lawfulness of the orders if the key issue is whether the person issuing the orders holds the position to do so. See page 160 at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/mcm2000.pdf
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.