Aye, there’s the rub.
They contradict because you say they contradict?
This is where things go off to left field a bit.
The judge doesn’t seem to agree with you. I have yet to see a comment from a JAG or former JAG that agrees with you. Lakin’s lawyer doesn’t even agree with you.
In the course of my life I have learned, occasionally the hard way, that the lay person seldom grasps the true limits of their knowledge on a subject. And that experience has a very real value.
So I find myself generally disinclined to think that that lay persons have a more correct grasp of matters than folks who specialize in those matters.
It’s not that I am blindly trusting “experts”, or think that you are stupid. It’s a simple understanding that I have. When someone deals with a matter for a living they are probably going to have a much better handle on it than someone who does not.
As the old canard goes: The race is not always to the swift, nor the fight to the strong. But, that is the way to bet.
You’re blowing off McInerney and Vallely again. And Fundamentally Fair, who has taught this stuff. Just because the people who agree are not on these particular threads doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
And I have asked for responses and rebuttals on the specific texts that I cited. Crickets, except for people saying I don’t know what I’m talking about, or that since Obama is the president it doesn’t matter if he is CONSTITUTIONALLY either the President OR able to “act as President even if he is the President. If the Constitution doesn’t allow him to either be or “act as” the President, then it doesn’t matter if he occupies the White House. It’s not occupying the White House that makes him able to have lawful authority. What gives the authority is the Constitution and laws.
And for those who say that all that matters is that Obama is the President - isn’t that an admission that the President IS relevant to the lawfulness of the orders? IOW, isn’t that actually agreeing with me that a valid POTUS approving the combat orders is required for those orders to be lawful?
If so, then even Lind herself agrees that her ruling (that the POTUS is irrelevant) is a bunch of baloney because then she mentions Obama being the president. See, her ruling is internally inconsistent. Why does she even take judicial notice of anything about Obama if he is irrelevant to the lawfulness of combat orders?
I’ve asked that, and nobody has answered it. That is why I say that the “experts” won’t engage. Buckeye Texan is the one who has been willing to engage. My respect for him has grown much in all this. I don’t necessarily agree with all his analysis, just as he doesn’t necessarily agree with mine, but we’re both willing to engage. When he sees the snag where we differ he’s willing to deal with it and to dig for answers. I have to respect and appreciate that, and I have to wonder why the “experts”, who surely must have the answers moreso than we non-experts, don’t seem willing to engage.