Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
No, he should have waited until he returned from his tour. Besides, his actions haven’t changed anything other than his own situation, except for depriving our troops of an experienced combat surgeon.
“He should have made his only crime speaking against the legitimate authority of the commander in chief to see if it would be prosecuted.”
That may have been the wiser thing to do. I cannot disagree with you about that.
Then I guess he really screwed up his life.
OK, but by his own admittance, he’s guilty as charged.
ok
I didn't say any of that either.
The constitution is not what his problem is. His problem is disobeying his orders. If you were to use my complete sentence, you would remember that I said perhaps the CiC doesn’t want an O5 telling him what to do, ie, producing his BC.
No they weren’t, and he knew the potential consequences of his actions.
“What’s fascinating about this is that they’re carrying on about issues which, as Old Deck Hand said, aren’t controversial at all. Legally, they are CRYSTAL CLEAR.”
To attornies they may be clear, but not to real people. Once again, this has been argued in depth with no resolution possible. We apparently operate under different paradigms.
BTW - You are correct about environmental regulations. I, unhappily, worked 24 years in the environmental field in a state agency. Absolute nightmare....the lawyers were wacko as were the regulations.
Loses his career? No, he’s still a doctor.
I wish there was a way to protect this man and his family from the vicious pirhana-like media that no doubt will tear his personal life to shreds if given half the chance.
"Obama is not a natural-born citizen" is a delusion of the loony right.
At least there is symmetry.
Well, but GWB didn’t steal the election. That was a liberal delusion. SCOTUS declared for Bush. The NY Times and others went down and actually counted the ballots, and they were unable to find any evidence that Gore won. And not for want of trying. They simply confirmed the Bush win—but of course did not publicize their findings.
Obama DID steal the presidency, and refuses to show evidence that he was qualified to run.
346 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:59:37 PM by Cicero
There is no symmetry there. The first is a proven delusion. The second is not. It is truly bizarre that Obama has never shown his birth certificate publicly, and refuses to do so.
Clinton and Obama both refused to show their medical records. And both refused to show their academic records. And the press did absolutely nothing to investigate these gaping holes in their records. Again, no symmetry, since the press never shows such incuriosity about conservatives.
Are you willing to accept someone as your president even if they are ineligible for the position if as you said....
They were on the ballot....
They received the majority of the vote....
The Electoral college voted for them as well....
The Congress had no objections....
And they were sworn it...
Remember your premise is that even if Obama is ineligible if every step of this process places him in office then he is president.
And as we have seen since even before the election no American Citizen has the right or the standing to question his eligibility in a court of law despite almost fifty attempts to do so.
That is what you believe, right?
I cited my sources. The elements of Article 90 and 92, the Authorization to Use Force, and the actual law which gives the SecDef the authority to implement Presidential combat orders down the chain of command ALL say that the President has to authorize the use of force. Those are the legal documents.
Lind cited 1/4 of one of those (i of Article 90 - specifically leaving out ii, which makes the lawful authorization critical for lawful orders) and left out all the other 3.
Them’s the facts.
Essentially a deployment order in a non-combat position is more in the line of a human-resources administrative decision than an executive decision. Larkin was simply asked to do the same job ina different location (a location (Afghanistan) which had previously been selected for troop deployment by GWB under the authority of Congress).
He should have raised this issue the day Obama was sworn into office and offered his resignation.
As you said, he could have simply gone public with his assertion about the legitimacy of the president and dealt with the fallout from speaking against the president.
But obeying one order (to serve stateside) as opposed to another order (to serve overseas) is not a consistent position. He should have refused to even go into work at all, since everything he did in uniform is essentially done under orders of the president.
He had some really bad legal advise on this case. His lawyers should sit next to him in the brig for the next 6 months. They owe him that much.
What You saying you would kill George Soros if he was president?
Personally I don't think you have the skills, the resources or the balls to do so, so your wild fantasies don't concern me...
>The legitimacy of Obama’s “Presidency “ is the question being avoided.
Absolutely it’s being avoided.
>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.
This brings up an interesting thought experiment I posted over here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/2638933/posts
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.