Posted on 06/09/2010 12:06:14 PM PDT by jamese777
The group backing Birther Army Doctor Terrence Lakin as he makes his way through the military justice system announced today that Lakin is waiving a preliminary hearing that was set for Friday.
Lt. Col. Lakin refused orders on the grounds that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. It is now up to Maj. Gen. Karl Horst, Military District of Washington Commander, to decide if the case will go to trial, said Chuck Dasey, spokesman at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where Lakin is assigned.
The American Patriot Foundation said in a press release: Saying that the Army has made it "impossible for me to present a defense" at the Article 32 "preliminary hearing" previously scheduled for June 11, 2010, Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin has officially waived -cancelled--that proceeding. Therefore, the case will move inexorably on to a General Court Martial.
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
The constitution provides that the *President* may be impeached for bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Two questions: Which is of those is “not eligible”? How can someone not eligible *be* President. The question for the courts, civilian or military, is “is he eligible? If he’s not, he can’t be impeached, because he is not President. If he is, there is nothing to impeach him for.. well expect Treason, Bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
From Article II of the Constitution: “The person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President” and “Before he enter on the Execution of his office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:...”
And “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
I believe that the election laws of every state allow for challenges to a candidate’s election within a specified time frame. None of those challenges to Obama’s eligibility were upheld by state courts. In my home state of California, there was a legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility that was dismissed by a US District Court Judge (Lightfoot v Bowen). That lawsuit went all the way to the US Supreme Court where it was denied. Such eligibility lawsuits also happened in quite a few other states. THe problem of legal standing to sue could have been solved by having a person with a reasonable chance of attaining the contested office to be the plaintiff. That would have been Senator John Sidney McCain, the only other candidate to receive electoral college votes and the only person directly harmed by Obama’s election.
When Obama’s electoral votes were certified and when he was sworn in, he became the President (de jure) under the law and in fact. The way to remove a President is via impeachment, trial and conviction.
Two recent presidents both had impeachment charges drawn up for perjury and obstruction of justice (Nixon and Clinton). If Obama is found to be truly ineligible, those two “high crime” charges seem appropriate yet again. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for “Violation of the Tenure of Office Act.”
The truth is that Congress can impeach a President for just about anything but getting an actual conviction in the Senate has proven to be impossible, to date.
Jamese777, paid troll that he is... is correct when he points out that Obama’s camp will do almost anything to avoid having this go to Court Martial. All we have seen so far is posturing. If the good doctor contacted his CO tomorrow and offered to drop it... I can almost guarantee that all would be forgiven. It is only Col. Lakin’s determination which is keeping this going. The more unreasonably this is handled and the harsher his punishment... the more this will put pressure on Obama to release the documents. Just to assure the public and military personnel no reasonable person can make a good argument that this should not be done without any other incentive. This charade has gone on long enough!
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin may have his best chance with a court-martial panel of senior O-5s and O-6s who are sympathetic to him.
Am I right? Who knows? This situation has never happened before to my knowledge. Some high powered law professors argued during the Clinton administration that perjury is not a "high crime or misdemeanor" and the courts have never defined it in our Constitutional context.
Bottom line is this controversy is going nowhere and the real remedy is the American voters throwing this guy out when they next have the chance.
Thank you. I feel very bad for this man. He is making horrible choices.
I have offered before to bet a steak dinner that this court will never issue subpoenas for Obama or his birth records.
That oath has nothing to do with soldiers disobeying their officers' orders.
In my opinion, if a President takes office knowing he is not Constitutionally qualified that would be a form of fraud qualifying as a “high crime or misdemeanor.”
Am I right? Who knows? This situation has never happened before to my knowledge. Some high powered law professors argued during the Clinton administration that perjury is not a “high crime or misdemeanor” and the courts have never defined it in our Constitutional context.
Bottom line is this controversy is going nowhere and the real remedy is the American voters throwing this guy out when they next have the chance.
I agree.
“It is now up to MG Horst, to determine if the case will go to court-martial and the level of court-martial. MG Horst could also decide that some other disposition is more appropriate than court-martial. MG Horst is the General Court-Martial Convening Authority for Soldiers assigned to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.”
I guess you don’t read the news. Obama is the one who ordered more troops into Afghanistan not Col. Lakin’s CO. This comes right down the chain of command through Obama. There is enough evidence suggesting that Obama could be a fraud that it is his duty as our nations leader to answer these questions by showing the documentation that would prove that he is not. This must be done if for no other reason to increase the militarys’ and publics’ confidence in our leader. It is insane that people in his own party have not demanded that he do this instead of waving around an unverifiable document that may demonstrate nothing more than his well known powers of deception.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/asia/01orders.html
Actually I was quoting your quote from comment #19 and other comments you made. I assumed with your vast knowledge on this subject that you understood the primary significance of your quote. That is that other alternatives are being considered. The only way that this is going to make it to a full court martial with a prison term is if Col. Lakin will not give up. He now has months more for the other side to try and wear him down and convince him to give up. You are being very disingenuous when you say that this might not even be on Obama’s “radar screen”. I suppose this is your attempt to marginalize the significance of the highest ranking person so far to put it all on the line to push this issue.
“It is now up to MG Horst, to determine if the case will go to court-martial and the level of court-martial. MG Horst could also decide that some other disposition is more appropriate than court-martial. MG Horst is the General Court-Martial Convening Authority for Soldiers assigned to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.”
Here are the options available to Major General Horst:
1. Refer the charges to trial by general court-martial.
2. Return the case to the commander at WRAMC for the commander to deal with administratively (Article 15, UCMJ, action, adverse OER [officer evaluation record]).
3. Direct an administrative discharge action.
4. Forward the case to Human Resources Command with a recommendation and request for administrative discharge action.
5. “Dropping from the Rolls,” an action taken by the President is also an option. Yes, Obama could fire Lakin.
That is HIGHLY unlikely.
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a major jurisdictional question involving the military courts in Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 119 S. Ct. 1538, 143 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1999). The Court ruled that the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces did not have the authority to issue an Injunction preventing the U.S. Air Force from dropping a convicted officer from its rolls. The decision made clear that the president has the power to fire military personnel for the same offenses that resulted in their courts-martial and convictions.
In 1996, Congress passed legislation that expanded the president’s authority over the military. The president was empowered to drop from the rolls of the armed forces any officer who had been sentenced by a court-martial to more than six months’ confinement and who had served at least six months. The case in Goldsmith arose when an Air Force major, who was HIV-positive, continued to have unprotected sex after a superior had ordered him to inform his sexual partners of his disease. When the officer had sex with two partners, including a fellow officer and a civilian, he was convicted by a court-martial of willful disobedience of an order from a superior officer and two other related charges.
The officer appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals and, later, the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, seeking an injunction to prevent the president and the Air Force from dropping the officer from the Air Force rolls. Although the CCA refused, indicating that it lacked jurisdiction, the USCAAF issued the injunction. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice David H. souter, ruled that the USCAAF lacked this form of injunctive power. According to the Court, the USCAAF’s authority is limited to the review of sentences imposed by courts-martial and appellate decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
For what its worth, Major General Horst was appointed to his current position during the Obama administration and he was promoted to Major General last November by President Obama.
I guess you don’t read the news. Obama is the one who ordered more troops into Afghanistan not Col. Lakin’s CO. This comes right down the chain of command through Obama. There is enough evidence suggesting that Obama could be a fraud that it is his duty as our nations leader to answer these questions by showing the documentation that would prove that he is not. This must be done if for no other reason to increase the militarys’ and publics’ confidence in our leader. It is insane that people in his own party have not demanded that he do this instead of waving around an unverifiable document that may demonstrate nothing more than his well known powers of deception.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/asia/01orders.html
MEMORANDUM FOR MAJ Matthew 1. Kemkes, US Army Trial Defense Service, 4217 Roberts Avenue, Suite 5030, Fort George G, Meade, MD 20755-5030
SUBJECT: Investigating Officer’s Ruling on Defense Request for Witnesses and Evidence in Accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 405 – Article 32, UCMJ Investigation, US v. LTC Terrence L. Lakin
“The Government does not charge that the President gave an order directly to LTC Lakin. For the President’s credentials to have any bearing on the charges against LTC Lakin, the Defense proposition must be that military orders issued by superiors to juniors are all ‘invalidated’ during the period the President improperly holds office. This proposition fails to account for the law of lawfulness of orders, which in essence requires that a facially proper order be obeyed so long as it does not require the commission of a criminal act. See, e.g., United States v. New, 55 MJ. 95, 107 -108 (2001) (medic who doubted lawfulness of order to deploy with United Nations uniform accoutrements unable to overcome presumption of lawfulness of superior’s orders to so deploy). Moreover, the Defense proposition fails to account for the de facto officer doctrine, a military variant of apparent authority. The Defense offers no legal support whatever for its position, which I find to be far from ‘axiomatic.’ As far as I have found, the position has no basis in law.”
He is an officer, and officers, especially, are expected not to obey unlawful ones. Enlisted are too, but there is nothing about obeying orders in the officer's oath to begin with. I've given the "lawful verses unlawful orders" briefing, many, many moons ago.
So the issue, from a legal standpoint, as well as a "good order and discipline" standpoint, is "were the orders lawful". It's an affirmative defense that they were not, but that means he has to prove that there were not. The government doesn't have to prove that they were. But he must be given the chance to so prove.
Key word "before". It does not say one becomes President upon taking the oath. Presidents, and other office holders are not "sworn in". They take an oath.
Generally officers take their oath of office twice, once in writing, and once orally.
But they don't become officers until they recieve written orders. IIRC, but its been a long time so it could have changed or I could be wrong, the written orders became effective upon return of the signed written version of the oath.
The truth is that Congress can impeach a President for just about anything but getting an actual conviction in the Senate has proven to be impossible, to date.
Only two President's have been impeached. Johnson and Clinton. Two is not much of a sample to base such a conclusion on.
In this case the order came from Obama down through the chain of command to Col. Lakin. Who do we ultimately blame for the deaths of 6,000,000 Jews?
Note that it does not say anything like "Upon taking the following oath or affirmation, he shall enter on the Execution of his office", which is what you are implying by saying "he was sworn in, therefore he is President". Taking the oath is just another requirement, like getting the majority of the electoral votes. It could be taken anytime after the vote count becomes official. He still would not enter into the execution of the office until noon on January 20th.
What’s the frequency, Kenneth?
So, is it your position that every movement order to Iraq and Afghanistan for every unit and soldier since Obama took office is "illegal"???
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.