Replies

When the orders do not come from a legitimate source. In other words, I could not order the military to so much as scrub the floors, I don’t have the authority. This says that Obama doesn’t either.

I'm not quite sure what point of mine you are trying to answer. While some may not accept 0bama's legitimacy, it is by no means a settled fact -- you have no ability whatever to order military, he does at this time.

My question is not so much his authority but the conclusion being drawn that this revocation is automatically proving the illegitimate question, when I'm wondering if it is not simply keeping the major in the U.S. in order to begin prosecution of his disobeying orders. Should I be understanding from the action that the military is accepting the illegitimacy argument, that 0bama has no authority and all members of the military, should they so chose, may ignore any further orders at their whim?? Frankly I find this hard to believe.

While some may not accept 0bama's legitimacy, it is by no means a settled fact -- you have no ability whatever to order military, he does at this time. My question is not so much his authority but the conclusion being drawn that this revocation is automatically proving the illegitimate question, when I'm wondering if it is not simply keeping the major in the U.S. in order to begin prosecution of his disobeying orders. Should I be understanding from the action that the military is accepting the illegitimacy argument, that 0bama has no authority and all members of the military, should they so chose, may ignore any further orders at their whim?? Frankly I find this hard to believe.

As an understanding of the ramifications of this outcome get through into the Judge Advocate General's office, I believe that is exactly the legal situation with which the military is faced.

The Major did not disobey an order at all--he took access to appropriate legal authority to determine whether the order was lawful. The seminal fact making the order lawful would be a demonstration by the putative CIC that he is Constitutionally eligible to act. The challenge to his authority was based on a simple narrow factual issue--where was he born.

So when the Commander, instead of responding directly with his birthplace, renders the challenge moot by withdrawing the order, it is a reasonable inference that he is in fact not eligible to act.

At that point, military officers who act on the basis of future orders need to be concerned that the legal consequences of their actions no longer rest on the authority of their superiors but on the actor himself--a dangerous position for a military officer.

That in peacetime in the domestic US. What position is the officer in if he is in the field in combat? Almost all of these treaties are couched on reliance on authority of the head of state.

Orders issued on the purported authority of a head of state who is not the head of state because he is not Constitutionally eligible to act as head of state are likely to be viewed as void.

I have been involved with this issue since the beginning over a year ago. Throughout the process, I have often suggested that the end game might well come down to this issue for the military.

As the issue has continued to develop against the obvious backdrop of evidence that Obama was in fact born in Coast Hospital in Mombassa Kenya, we have come to focus on the question of what the Joint Chief's and their counsel are thinking about. It has seemed to me obvious that the ultimate moment of truth was at had and would present the Chief's with a very difficult set of choices.