Posted on 04/22/2010 2:54:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence L. Lakin was charged today with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Articles 87 and 92.
(Chargesheet at the link in PDF format.)
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Just because Birthers refuse to accept the fact there are some issues that the United States Supreme Court does not get the final say on, does not change the fact that there are some issues that the United States Supreme Court does not get the final say on. Whine, cry, lecture on how you're saving the Republic by having the United States Army decide who is President, it won't get you any where. In fact, it helps Obama.
Freepers who want to inflate their own egos, and aid Obama, can't do better than play Birther parlor games, where they imagine that Judge Harry Stone, or the Judge from Laugh In, or some judge, some where, is going to order the Secret Service to stack BO and Michelle's stuff on the curb in front of the White House. Freepers who want to do something positive will work to elect conservative Republicans this fall.
Not if it isn't relevant to the case before them.
I believe the constitution gave Carter the power to challenge Obama directly, and petty tricks and traps like the progressives love to pull be damned.
Judge Carter disagreed with you. No doubt the appeals courts will support Judge Carter's decision.
I don't think you're correct on that.
You know, you get slammed left and right but you keep on going.
Question: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
Palin: I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue ’cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.
Question: Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at? Palin: I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don’t think that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we’re seeing made manifest in the administration.
Palin: I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right? Hey, you know, that’s a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he’s your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same [unintelligible]-type thinking on them.
So we see Palin saying to the leftist loons who wanted to see her kid's birth certificate that Trig is hers and where she promptly showed the idiots his birth certificate. And how about we see Barack Obama's too? "Rightfully" so...and is a "fair question" to ask him.
Palin's question(s) goes to - is Obama eligible for presidential office?
“Palin’s question(s) goes to - is Obama eligible for presidential office?”
But it does NOT suggest Obama is ineligible because of his father’s citizenship, does it?
I would love to see his birth certificate - long & short - and his college records, etc. I think it is entirely reasonable for voters to be given full access to someone’s records prior to their running. I don’t hire a contractor without checking his license (did once, and got burned!). I wouldn’t hire someone to run a store without checking their credentials - so why not Obama?
But NOTHING in your quote suggests she believes Obama is ineligible because his father was a foreigner. She already KNOWS his father was Kenyan - she HAS that answer already. And she isn’t making an issue of it.
Do you understand English? Is it too hard for you? I’ll cut you some slack if your native language is Swahili...
By Obama showing his BC in a court of law, he would be on the official record to who Obama father truly is. From there his British/Kenyan citizenship at birth could be more easily challenged in court.
I would love to see his birth certificate - long & short - and his college records, etc. I think it is entirely reasonable for voters to be given full access to someone’s records prior to their running.
BS. You're too busy protecting Obama.
But NOTHING in your quote suggests she believes Obama is ineligible because his father was a foreigner. She already KNOWS his father was Kenyan - she HAS that answer already. And she isn’t making an issue of it.
Apparently you didn't see where Palin said,
Palin: I think it’s a fair question [the Birth Certificate question], just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game.
It's not much of an inference to see Palin would like to officially get Obama to show his real birth certificate to some controlling authority to answer the question of his father along with him being born in the United States. Palin, by asking that it is a fair question, doesn't buy into that silly .jpg image posted on the web that you Obots think that is genuine and an unaltered document.
Do you understand English? Is it too hard for you? I’ll cut you some slack if your native language is Swahili...
Better than most, however, you may suffer from a comprehension problem that appears to plague After-Birthers.
“By Obama showing his BC in a court of law, he would be on the official record to who Obama father truly is. From there his British/Kenyan citizenship at birth could be more easily challenged in court.”
While I doubt Obama was Barry’s father, it would be assumed by any court unless Obama contested it.
” Apparently you didn’t see where Palin said,
Palin: I think it’s a fair question [the Birth Certificate question], just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game.”
And apparently you still have trouble with English. She already knows Obama’s father was born in Kenya (then part of the UK).
She doesn’t need to discover that, she KNOWS. Yet she has never used that as the basis for saying Obama is ineligible, has she?
And THAT is what I claimed - that Palin has never said that Obama is ineligible due to his father not being a US citizen.
Should I repeat it with crayons, or do you need a picture?
While 'we ASSumed' how about Obama finally put it to rest by at least showing he was born in Hawaii?
And apparently you still have trouble with English. She already knows Obama’s father was born in Kenya (then part of the UK).
I admit there maybe thousands of arcane English words that I'm not familiar with, but you have an After-Birther comprehension problem.
I again point out,
Palin: I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue ’cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.
Here Palin says she is not making it a central issue. The birth certificate question does also encompass the jus sanguinis question. As we see when she says "the electorate" who are the citizens of this country still want answerS.
Not just an answer but ANSWERS - plural. So it is assumed that Obama's daddy was Kenyan. Again, you fail the logic test. Because people in the leftist media and the so-called country leaders do not make it an issue that Obama is not an natural born citizen, does make him an NBC.
Lets put this in a simple and an understandable way: 2 + 2 = 4 right? No matter what people say 2 + 2 is always 4 - right?
If everyone said 2 + 2 = 5 does it equal 5? According to your logic 2 + 2 = 5 because they all say so.
If 100 billion people say 2 + 2 = 5 then you think it must be true...by your logic. So when it was "commonly accepted" that Barack Obama's father is Kenyan and Jr. became a president of the United States, that makes Obama eligible under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution ...no matter if he is not...by your silly logic.
Palin has NOT claimed anywhere at any time that Obama is ineligible for President because his father wasn’t a US citizen. That is what I said, and you cannot refute.
“Lets put this in a simple and an understandable way: 2 + 2 = 4 right? No matter what people say 2 + 2 is always 4 - right?”
You assume your interpretation is true. Then you state that it must be true. It doesn’t work that way. We are not dealing with math, or a simple addition problem. If we were, there would be no debate. There is only one right answer in math.
However, the debate is over the meaning of “natural born citizen”. There are multiple interpretations possible. And yes, the states, voters, Congress and the Supreme Court have allowed someone they KNEW had a foreigner for a father become President.
Therefor, we can safely assume the states, voters, Congress and the Supreme Court use a different definition than you do. In other words, in the real world, 2+2 DOES equal 4, and you are the odd man out claiming 17.
Palin did say the eligibility question is fair game. In other words, that is the birth certificate question which encompasses not only jus soli but also jus sanguinis as it pertains to the nature born citizen clause. It is disingenuous to say it does not encompass both.
You assume your interpretation is true.
Yeah, it is a fact that 2 + 2 = 4. Your silly logic error: Obama Kenyan born father who passed his citizenship at birth to Jr, and Jr became president, therefore, Jr. is constitutionally eligible because "everyone knew" his father was Kenyan and therefore, jus sanguinis has no effect to the natural born citizen clause.
Therefor, we can safely assume the states, voters, Congress and the Supreme Court use a different definition than you do.
You mean the courts are 'evading' the issue of the meaning of the natural born citizen clause.
However, the debate is over the meaning of “natural born citizen”. There are multiple interpretations possible.
Not multiple - There is only one.
As cited by rxsid:
"What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic.
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter" http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592): Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels" To English: "Citizens and natural"
French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"
Prior to the Constitution
"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."
Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library: Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."
In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.
After the Constitution
The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel) UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here:
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:
"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]" From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.
Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz. Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law: "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'". Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:
commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory (& thus jurisdiction) of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country)." "
Palin: You need to grow up. She KNOWS about Obama’s father, and that is NOT the birth certificate issue. The quote was:
“Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?” she was asked (around 9 minutes into the video above).
“I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,” she replied.
“Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?” Humphries persisted.
“I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records — all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area.”
McCain’s campaign counsel has said the campaign did look into the birth certificate question and, like every other serious examination, dismissed it.
Palin suggested that the questions were fair play because of “the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son — ‘You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,’ which we have done.”
“Maybe we can reverse that,” she said, returning to Obama’s birth certificate, describing the type of thinking involved with a word that isn’t clear in the audio.
The following day she wrote:
“Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.”
Now, if YOU think that is the equivalent of saying that Obama is ineligible because his father wasn’t a US citizen, YOU are an idiot who cannot read or understand basic English.
If you think there is only one interpretation of Natural Born Citizen, then you need to stop living on Birther blogs and read the opposition.
There is a reason why you get your butts kicked in court, but you won’t learn it from your hallelujah chorus!
You won’t like this website, but you ought to read it and think about it:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
People who go to court thinking they are the only ones with an argument generally get beat - and birthers are beaten every time they step in a court. Until you understand that there ARE two sides, and that it is possible for a judge to DECIDE foe the other one, you will continue to be beaten.
Of course, none of this matters to you, because you believe in your little birther heart that you can just click the ruby slippers together and make the bad man go away...
The Declaration of Independence is the law of the land and it offers at least one lawful solution; one that some politicians and usurpers may not like.
Palin: Mr Rogers is kool-aid drinking Obot.
Ah...so you realize you have no clue about what Palin actually said and are resorting to name calling. Given the birther record in court, I have to ask: Do your lawyers do the same thing when THEY are losing?
And you need to quit suckling the teet of Obama. You're the one with a big comprehension problem.
You are a Obama donkey butt and I see you have seen this thread.
"Vattel Cited: Records of the Federal Convention1787 (Natural Born Citizen) The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] ^ | 1911 | Max Farrand"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2499410/posts?page=70
Have you checked your posting lately?
Yes. I posted this on 14 April 2010: If Congress makes the wrong call about the results on an election, too bad. You can elect a new Congress, or you can raise the banner of revolution, but you can't get any court, Federal, Martial, or Night, to over rule Congress.
I'm not prepared to revolt. Nor, I suspect, are most brithers. So those of us who aren't trying to over throw the government by force of arms can do something useful - try to win elections - or we can engage in Walter Mitty fantasies about litigating BO out of office. My choice is clear.
My butt kicked in court? We only need one punch to take Obama's house off cards down and out. BTW, kicking my butt is something you could never do to me.
You’re saying the brigade commander’s order is completely disconnected from and unrelated to Obama’s authority.
Does that mean you don’t think Obama is really president?
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.