Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
“The decision to issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the U.S. State Department to a dual citizen who moves out of the U.S. and effectively renounces their U.S. citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence is discretionary. See SCOTUS opinion, Vance v. Terrazas (1980)....
...On the other hand, SoS Dean Rusk maintained a lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence for issuing CLNs. A 5 year-old dual citizen who moves out of the U.S. with a parent who informs the State Department they have no intention of returning to the U.S. would be issued a CLN. SoS Vance continued SoS Rusk’s standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and it was upheld by SCOTUS in 1980.”
No, a 5 year old dual citizen who moves outside the US never has had his citizenship revoked. The case you cite reads:
“Appellee, Laurence J. Terrazas, was born in this country, the son of a Mexican citizen. He thus acquired at birth both United States and Mexican citizenship. In the fall of 1970, while a student in Monterrey, Mexico, and at the age of 22, appellee executed an application for a certificate of Mexican nationality, swearing “adherence, obedience, and submission to the laws and authorities of the Mexican Republic” and
“expressly renounc[ing] United States citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience, and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of the United States of America. . . .”
That was a TWENTY-TWO year old who swore a statement revoking his US citizenship, NOT a 5 year old who moved overseas!
A post like your is simply dishonest. You are LYING. You cannot use a case involving a 22 year old who swears a statement renouncing US citizenship to show a 5 year old loses citizenship when his parents take him to another country.
Another lie: “Obama moved back to the U.S. in 1971 and chose not to recapture his U.S. citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday.”
He had never lost his citizenship. He returned to the USA at age 10. He has lived here ever since as a US citizen. He was not here on an Indonesian passport using a visa.
So again, you are lying about the FACTS. No other birther on the forum that I’ve encountered has acted so dishonestly.
“Officers who ask the question are acting honorably and standing by their vow to defend the constitution. Someone must stand up in the face of a complete system breakdown.”
Is that what you would have said when the enlisted in a squadron I was in refused to deploy because GWB wasn’t properly elected President, and therefor didn’t have the right to order them into combat?
Did officers have a right and duty to refuse orders starting 20 Jan 2001 because GWB didn’t REALLY win Florida, but instead was imposed on the USA by a cabal of unelected justices voted him in 7-2?
“How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?”
__
That’s a good question. But I don’t want to find out when I’m under enemy fire that the soldier standing by my side is not going to shoot back because he believes the President to be ineligible. Neither do I want to learn that, if I am wounded, I will be treated by a less experienced doctor who arrived on short notice because the doctor who was scheduled to deploy had refused to show up at the last minute.
Anyone who doesn’t want to serve under the Commander-in-Chief is free to resign. Those who remain in uniform have an obligation to their buddies to fight by their side and heal their wounds, regardless of their personal beliefs.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice is very clear on this point when it states (Article 90) that “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
Even Lakin’s first attorney knew better than to claim that an order to report to one’s commanding officer’s office or to board a plane was anything but an “otherwise lawful order.” (If you’re curious, the preceding paragraphs of Art. 90, which you can find at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm, explain in detail what that means.)
From the military justice point of view, this was an open-and-shut case.
To whom? People voted for him, the Electoral College voted for him, Congress confirmed him, the Chief Justice swore him in. Whose opinion outweighs theirs?
How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?
You can't. You resign.
The thing I don't think you and butter understand is that that what you say should have happened in this case establishes a principle and a precedent for what should happen in every case, like that of the guy in Mr Rogers' squadron. Between the two of you, you're calling for a military where, if the CinC wasn't "properly screened" and hasn't "established credibility," an officer can follow orders and draw a paycheck up until the time they're ordered to get on a plane (or, presumably, into an MRAP or HMMV), at which point they can refuse on the basis that they're not convinced the commander is legitimate. If that's not what you want, then please elucidate the principles that would distinguish Lakin's case from others.
Two honorable officers went to prison.
Please don’t tell me the litany of accomplices to the fraud.
The person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone. That’s WHOM
I agree officers should have resigned en masse
Ah but the evidence is that bush did win. You did follow the recounts including the Miami herald.
There was plenty of time before Iraq to make an informed decision to resign.
If you truly believe the cic is illigetimate, you have a ,oral obligation to get out before killing people or ordering it.
Really? So a President needs to go to every member of the Armed Forces and show them his birth certificate? He needs to show every member his Electoral College count? He needs to argue to every member that his birth certificate isn’t a forgery?
Hawaii says Obama was born there. John McCain & Sarah Palin accepted Obama as eligible. The voters accepted him as eligible. The Electoral College voted, and all 535 members of Congress accepted their vote as valid. The US Supreme Court accepted it. Every facet of government, including all 50 state governments and all foreign governments, accept that Obama is legally the President.
But any member of the military can disobey a legal order by claiming the President isn’t the real President - either GWB in 2000, or Obama in 2008?
Don’t be ridiculous. The people and court listed in my first post should have done their jobs screening him.
YOU say GWBush won. I guess you trust the judgment of the Miami Herald. But we had enlisted guys who did NOT accept that GW Bush won. They believed it was a stolen election, and that the US Supreme Court committed fraud in their ruling, and that GW Bush’s team managed to distort the evidence.
Now you say that if someone believes Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, and that the government of Hawaii is lying, then they can disobey otherwise legal orders.
A conspiracy by GW Bush to sway the Supreme Court is more plausible than a conspiracy involving all 50 states, all 535 members of Congress and the US Supreme Court...heck, there was even a challenge to the Electoral College vote in Congress against GW Bush. There wasn’t one with Obama.
I was thinking more like a Geraldo Rivera-style trip to the vital records storeroom. Everybody trusts Geraldo, don't they?
I said they should resign rather than follow a faux commander.
You mean these people? "...it is the fault of the democrat party, the sec of state, the electoral college, the congress, the ussc, and indirectly, the media." They think they did their jobs. You're claiming they didn't, which means you must have some standard in mind that they didn't meet, and someone to enforce that standard. No? Again, I think you're overlooking the practical implications of what you're proposing here.
You are either very ill informed or just want to kill time.
The sec of state knew of the allegations but did not ask for birth certificate as cal did with Eldridge cleaver.
How many times has the ussc refused to define NBC in the last five years.
I’m tired of the topic. Read the other threads for more background. I’m not interested in being a tutor.
You believe in blind allegiance. I don’t.
Never said or meant any such thing. Perhaps you can list how Obama proved his eligibility during the campaign and what the ussc ruled about it. Most people would abide by those .
I’m tired of the blind allegiance folks hear and spinners like you.
I’m out.
“Perhaps you can list how Obama proved his eligibility during the campaign and what the ussc ruled about it. Most people would abide by those.”
__
I can tell you how I personally became convinced of his eligibility, but I’m only a single voter. I can’t speak for what convinced the Democratic Party, or the other voters, or the vast majority of the press and the Congress, etc., etc. They have to speak for themselves.
But they clearly have made their decisions on whatever basis they considered appropriate, and you are right — most people are abiding by them.
If you wish to describe adherence to the Constitution as blind allegiance, of course that is your right.
“I said they should resign rather than follow a faux commander.”
I will grant that. If someone really believes the President cannot issue orders, and that the orders issued by all the President’s subordinates are illegal, then they ought to resign rather than disobey.
“How many times has the ussc refused to define NBC in the last five years.”
From the viewpoint of the US Supreme Court, they have. The WKA ruling in 1898 went into great detail concerning the meaning of NBC. The specific HOLDING did not, since WKA wasn’t running for President, but the ARGUMENT is unchanged, and has never been challenged in court prior to Obama. All lower courts are already using WKA as precedent, so there is no need for the US Supreme Court to make it binding with a specific holding by accepting another case.
A ruling doesn’t need to be BINDING to be PERSUASIVE.
“Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority or advisory precedent) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.
In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_precedent#Persuasive_precedent
As long as the lower courts are all united in being PERSUADED by WKA, the Supreme Court doesn’t need to accept a case to make it BINDING.
Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi
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.