Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Lakin Sentenced
1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.
True. Almost everyone is guilty of that to some degree. It's the degree that matters. Some just cannot separate what they want to be true from what is. This is the foundational birther error, in common with most conspiracy theories.
LTC Lakin will be vindicated in the end. Can't say the same about those cowards who refused to uphold their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
You've ignored other orders he refused.
Never. He pled guilty.
Care to make a wager on that....
If President Obama signs the law extendsing the Bush tax cuts, are you going to insist on paying taxes at the higher level? After all, he has no authority to sign that law, according to you.
That is what's so fascinating. Ignoring the law while claiming to support it.
Did this happen before or after Lakin was ordered to murder Jews?
I don’t know ... ‘color of office’ is
an interesting term.
Have you notice that they also seem to elevate the 20th Amendment above the rest of the Constitution? It seems to be the most important part of the Constitution.
So what you are saying is that if George Soros ran for president and all states allowed him on the ballot, a majority of voters voted for him the electoral college voted for him and the congress accepted the results without question, and Sottomayer swore him in, he would be president?
Right?
There is another series of road blocks. Each payor has their own credentialing process with that question about felonies.
Troll.
Difference is GWB wasn’t illegitimate, and 0bastard is.
“This court’s declaration is tantamount to declaring that all officers have authority inherent in themselves and independent of the President.”
The way I see it is that all military personnel have authority flowing from a legitimate President; and all military personnel - E1 and up - are charged with obeying legitimate orders.
The legitimacy of Obama’s “Presidency “ is the question being avoided.
We don’t lawfully know whether Obama was elected to the office or not, because the law that dictates how the electoral results are to be certified was not followed. No judge has ruled on whether that breach of the law invalidates the certification. The federal judiciary can’t just step in and say, “Wait, wait, wait, that doesn’t count!” They can only decide there was a problem when a case is brought before them, and to this point the case which appears to have standing hasn’t yet made it to SCOTUS. It was dismissed because the law was ignored by the judge so the judge could claim that not only had Twitter already decided the case, but not enough is at stake. (cough)
How do you know I haven’t taken an oath to faithfully execute the office of the presidency? If I have taken it would that make me be the president? What WOULD make me the president?
I know you’re going to say I’m being silly but my point in all this is that there are LEGAL requirements that must be fulfilled before a person running for president can “act as President”. The Constitutional requirements are:
1) must win the electoral vote, as certified by Congress according to the Constitution as codified through statute
2) must “qualify” by Jan 20th. The qualifications for Presidential eligibility involve, age, residency, and natural born citizenship status
3) must take a specific oath of office
Those are all legal steps. If *I* stand up and say I met the requirements that doesn’t make any legal difference. And anybody in the world should be able to sue me to show that I did NOT meet the requirements just because I said I did. If there is any controversy or case presented which questions my claims, the federal judiciary is to decide whether I am right or the claims against me are right.
The first 2 steps have been contested. If #1 hasn’t been met then step #3 is no more legal proof of presidency than if I made the oath here in my bedroom. I can say it all I want, but if I don’t meet the Constitutional requirements my simply saying it is so doesn’t make it legally so.
Chief Justice Roberts could swear that I took the presidential oath here in my bedroom but that would not make me the president OR give me the right to “act as President”. And anybody who wanted to contest my presidency should have a right to have the requirements of the Constitution interpreted and applied to my case. Even if Chief Justice Roberts administered the presidential oath of office to me it wouldn’t make me the President, or give me the right to “act as President”. The requirements ALL have to be met.
And it is up to the federal judiciary to decide all controversies and cases arising from the Constitution and the laws.
Until the federal judiciary decides the cases, not one of us can know whether the requirements have ALL been lawfully met. And it is very, very interesting to me that all 3 steps have some SNAFU involved so that there could be question as to whether ANY of them have been lawfully met. All the SNAFU’s coming at the hands of people who knew far in advance what they SHOULD legally do but who have somehow botched it up. The only one the Obama folks even PRETENDED to care about being done the legally correct way was the oath of office, and even at that the second time the oath was taken they didn’t allow video to be made of it so we have to depend on the testimony of the witnesses who were all Obots except Roberts.
The only reason Obama is PRESUMED to be POTUS is because he’s had the audacity to move into the White House and nobody has kicked him out yet. The federal judiciary is still thinking about whether they should do their jobs on deciding whether the Constitutional requirements have been met.
They’re not gullibles.
They’re on the wrong team, with moral blinders firmly fixed in place.
Right?
If that ridiculous scenario were to happen, then yes. Under the laws of the United States, the b@st@rd would be President until the Judiciary ruled his presidency unconstitutional and Congress removed him or We the People abolished the government and replaced it with a new one.
So if today the 20th Amendment is now the part Moses brought down from Mount Sinai... Whatever. (Shrug)
Thank you I just wanted to hear from you that our constitution no longer matters.
Anyone can be president even the very devil himself if our nations accepts it.
The elements of lawfulness for Article 90, ii, totally justifies Lakin’s defense, as do the elements of lawfulness for Article 92. Lind conveniently left out those parts in order to say the Presidential authorization is “irrelevant”, even though the elements of lawfulness make about 3 different allusions to the lawfulness depending on Constitutionality and authorization.
Lind relies on Congress giving authority, but when you look at the authority Congress gives for the routine chain of command, they make the authorization for the whole thing dependend on Presidential approval, when combat forces are involved. So even the sources Lind cites make the authority to deploy troops dependent on Presidential approval - without which both ARticle 90 and Article 92 say the order is not lawful.
All the actual documents that Lind could cite say that Lakin’s defense is valid because it is not only relevant to the lawfulness of the orders but actually CRITICAL to the lawfulness.
I have posted previously along this vain. I have never seen an argument against it.
The documentation (or lack thereof) on the birth of Obama sealed in Hawaii, although sealed by executive order, does not have the same level of security associated with it as would secret/top-secret intelligence or military documents.
That being the case, how difficult would it be for intelligence agencies of every important country on earth to discover the truth of the matter? It would be a piece of cake.
Why would other countries’ governments want to know the actual data in the birth records of Obama? It is because those governments are more astute in the provisions of the United States Constitution than the average American, and they also know how much upheaval could be fomented among the American people by producing evidence at such a time as they see fit as it would suit their interests. I speak here of our enemies and antagonists.
On the flip side, friendly nations would be interested in knowing the truth as well, because they want to be able to project and assess what would be America’s strengths and vulnerabilities, and how these would affect their diplomatic ties with the the USA as well. In tense international crises, could friendly nations stand with an American president whose legitimacy and authority is so deeply questioned among the American electorate-—could he be trusted by allies?
Therefore an American president could be weakened and compromised; blackmailed and coerced by our nation’s enemies, and mistrusted by our allies.
And these are the reasons I believe that all documents called, “sealed” in Hawaii, as well as all documents available in Jakarta and Nairobi, and those in any other location, are absolutely, fully known in detail to the intelligence agencies and governments of Russia, China, India, Pakastan, Israel, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and at least a dozen more.
Any one of these countries intelligence officers could have acquired all of the information they wanted about the circumstances of Obama’s birth within 7 days after landing in Honolulu, and been on a flight home. And this would have included their time out for surf boards, a volcano tour, dancing with Hawaiian native gals.
It is the American electorate which has been duped. Our friends and our enemies abroad know the truth of the matter.
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.