Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Would a civilian court hearing the case of a road crew manager who refused to plow a street upon the Mayor’s order allow the refusenik the ability to contest the Mayor’s eligibility for office, to demand proof of birth place, citizenship and age aided by power of subpoena, oath and subject to cross-examination?
He didn’t tell you to lie down and die on this issue. He essentially said to stop with the extreme “if this,” “if that” scenarios. I believe he replied to a comment about your Iran scenario. And I suspect he’d say the same about your questions regarding the military exterminating Jews. IMO, butter, you’re skating on thin ice. I think you should be careful. But it’s your decision. You can debate your interpretation of the law without those extreme scenarios.
So if I went and sat in the White House and managed to not get thrown physically out on my ear in a physical coup.... then I too could be recognized as the President?
What I hear you saying is that the only power the people have to ensure that a usurper doesn’t hold the office is physical violence - literally throwing him out on his ear. Is that what you’re saying?
It doesn’t matter if he can “act as President”? That REALLY sounds like “Constitution be damned.” Did you really mean to say that?
Who is legally authorized to administer the oath of office to the Pres elect and VP elect? How does one get authorized to do that? Who was authorized to administer the oath to LBJ, and what authorized them?
And exactly where does the Constitution authorize the person who administers the oath to interpret and apply the 20th Amendment? I know the Third Article authorizes the federal judiciary to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws, but you’re talking about a single person outside the process of the courts. Where is it ever said in the Constitution that a single person, without hearing any case or considering any evidence, can interpret and apply the 20th Amendment?
And what such road crew manager could be charged with International War Crimes if he did unquestioningly do so?
Thanks Butter, but I think I got him with this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2643672/posts?page=253#253
Surgeons get privileges to work in a hospital but in general are not employed by hospitals. Some smaller communities dealing with very competitive specialties may end up hiring a surgeon but this is still an exception to the rule.
In my state, malpractice is an individual policy, even if you work for a group or hospital.
But since you bring it up, getting hospital privileges is going to be another challenge in addition to getting a license and insurance.
Correction: victims of Obama’s lawlessness.
What kind of a jerk would put both of these families through this? Not to mention the money he wasted on the procedures, and the loss of a good doctor. Sixteen wounded died, because Obama wouldn’t show the genuine article of what he says he already showed the whole world.
And for what purpose? Lakin’s purpose was to uphold the rule of law. What could possibly be Obama’s purpose in withholding a 10-second call to Fukino that could have saved 16 wounded warriors’ lives while allowing everybody in the country and the military to sleep with a good conscience and greater trust in their “dear leader”?
Why? Why did he go to all this trouble to particularly make sure that Lakin couldn’t in good conscience deploy and serve as he wants to?
You tell me, Lurking Libertarian - what was his motive?
I don’t appreciate your lack of candor.
What caused the harm in that case — the murderous enemy, the fraud Obama, or an officer, gentleman and patriot who stood on principle?
Moreover, given the efforts Colonel Lakin had made in the two years prior, the possibility that he might so refuse orders is a COMMANDER’s burden. Why didn’t the Commander have a back-up plan?
What does reporting to Kentucky have to do with Mrs. Dobson? If the charges have nothing to do with deployment, then Dobson is irrelevant to either the guilt or what punishment should be given. What relevance does Dobson have to Lakin’s “crime”, if deployment was never at issue?
You are waging a losing battle imo. You can what if a topic to death and stray miles beyond the elements of the case.
By claiming the chain of command was already broken.
Not worth it? I imagine he will become an instant celebrity on the lecture circuit and command some big fees.
I doubt it but IANAL. Our system of justice requires the plaintiff to prove his case. It doesn’t require the defendant to prove his innocence or the plaintiff’s case.
Birthers continue to pose one ridiculous scenario after another in an attempt to obtain a different answer - an answer with which they agree.
Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Repeating the same action and expecting a different result?
I thought his whole argument was that the orders were NOT legal.
Hussein as a person does not issue orders, The President of the United States does. If you showed that he was born on Mars, it won't make any difference as to the legality of the orders and duties exercised since he took office. Stomp and stammer, call him what you wish, it won't change a thing.
That is a not a definition of insanity, but it is a common saying. If it were the definition of insanity, 99.95% of people could be 72 houred right now.
I doubt it, he folded when he should have persevered - if you start out on that road, take it to the end. The moment he pleaded guilty to the first charge his major supporters and fund raisers washed their hands of him. He had served his purpose and that was the end.
Good heavens. Testing the edges is what philosophical analysis is all about.
And the Iran scenario isn’t even an extreme scenario but very valid. Obama could order us to use force in Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, wherever.... at any time, under the AUOF. And it wouldn’t have to be pre-announced in a presser either. This is a very real question.
I’m sorry, but if hypotheticals to root out the logic being applied is more than this place can handle then I really am in the wrong place.
I’ve spoken with enough military people to know that scenarios such as these are discussed. The German military just followed orders. What else could they do, if there was a law allowing Jews to be exterminated, or if the courts wouldn’t hear any cases or would actually confirm the lawfulness of the extermination orders?
It had to have been a gut-wrenching time. We’ve had the luxury of not having those gut-wrenching decisions to make, but that could change at a moment’s notice. The question has been posed in various places regarding what happens when the rubber hits the road - if and when Obama declares martial law and orders troops to use harsh force on Obama dissenters. What will these guys do? You can’t tell me that the question isn’t on the minds of a substantial number of our troops.
Censoring the talk about the tough issues doesn’t make them go away. It just means we’re less prepared if and when they reach critical mass where they can’t be ignored - at which point it’s too late to think because it’s time to act.
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.