Birther Army Doc Waives Hearing, Court Martial Likely To Move Ahead

TPM ^ | 7/9/10 | Justin Elliot

[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.

[jamese777]

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.

---

Come on now, all you did was move a couple of words around in the Constitutional requirement to be president. You didn’t alter the meaning.

Obama’s Electoral Collge votes were certified by Congress and Obama took the Oath of Office. He’s the President.

President Bush gave him the keys to the White House and he carries the Nuclear Football with the launch codes to every warhead in the US arsenal. Legislative bills that he has signed have become Acts of Congress and Executive Orders that he has signed have been operationalized.
An Obama appointee is on the US Supreme Court, for heavens sake and she was confirmed with 68 votes in the US Senate.
In fact ALL of Obama’s cabinet appointments have been confirmed. These are just a few of the acts of the president.
The following is from Fox News:
Published January 08, 2009

Barack Obama has been officially certified as the next president of the United States.

Though Obama has gone by the title of president-elect since his Nov. 4 victory, the House and Senate performed the formality of tallying the Electoral College votes in a joint session on Thursday.

Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden received 365 votes, and Republican nominee John McCain, along with running mate Sarah Palin, received 173 votes. A ticket needs 270 electoral votes to win.

Though the certification is a centuries-old ritual with a typically known outcome, this was the first non-contested Electoral College certification since 1996. Individual electors are not bound to vote in line with their states, but no electors deviated from the November returns on Thursday.

In the 2000 presidential election, numerous House members strenuously objected to the slate of electors from Florida, where a recount was cut short by the Supreme Court. But Vice President Al Gore, who lost to President Bush and then presided over the counting of the disputed results, rejected the objections because the House members weren’t joined by a Senate sponsor.

Four years ago, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., joined the late-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, in objecting to Ohio’s slate of electors.

After a debate, the House and Senate awarded Ohio’s 2004 electoral votes to President Bush.

[jamese777]

The key word being “should”. But it wasn’t.

---

Not to your satisfaction perhaps but it was to the satisfaction of 535 members of Congress and the Chief Justice of the United States, the people who matterrd most to orderly transition of the office of the presidency.

[jamese777]

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?

---

Are you REALLY trying to compare the holocaust to one soldier refusing a movement order?

[El Gato]

Not to your satisfaction perhaps but it was to the satisfaction of 535 members of Congress

I don't recall them having the issue put to them in any formal way.

The Chief Justice also did not have the issue before him, again, his role strictly ceremonial anyway. The oath could be administered by anyone.

[fireman15]

“Are you REALLY trying to compare the holocaust to one soldier refusing a movement order?”

Obviously not! However, Obama ordering 30,000 troops to Afghanistan directly resulted in Col. Lakin receiving his “movement order” through the chain of command. It makes little difference whether you or tankerman feels this was a legitimate order or not. The finding of the Court Martial could go either way. To preserve the morale and confidence in the leadership of the military and the citizens of this country Obama is obligated to unseal these documents. His secrecy implies that he is hiding something damaging about his past.

As I have stated repeatedly the value of this case has little to do with the eventual finding of the court. Either way it will be appealed and drug out for many more months or even years. If the good doctor loses and receives a harsh punishment the story will be told far and wide by the largest media outlet to the least read Facebook page. I think even you and tankerman understand at some level that the story of a highly decorated military surgeon actually giving up everything will have a lot more traction than a whole gaggle of good for nothing attorneys and politicians arguing over this crap. The American people understand true sacrifice. Col. Lakin is the Obama’s worst nightmare and whether or not you choose to admit it, you know that it is true.

[STE=Q]

“As I have stated repeatedly the value of this case has little to do with the eventual finding of the court”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You got it fireman15!

The officer is sworn — FIRST AND FOREMOST — to uphold the constitution!

All commissioned officers in the United States military must make the following oath of office when they are appointed in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy or U.S. Marine Corps:

I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

If the officer has good reason to believe his commander in chief is illegitimate then — if oaths have any meaning — he has a DUTY to expose him, as best he can.

It would be a crime of omission if he did not.

This also applies to his superiors... if they have reason to suspect the legitimacy of their commander in chief they would also have a duty — per their oath — to expose the usurper.

In this case it would seem that the question of defending the constitution would supersede whether or not an order is followed.

Lieutenant Colonel Lakin MAY be in trouble for defending the constitution by attempting to expose a likely usurper by disobeying orders that may (or may not)be adjudicated lawful.

His sacrifice will not be lost on the American people.

Americans will ask why Obama doesn’t release his birth and other vital records?

STE=Q

[jamese777]

I don’t recall them having the issue put to them in any formal way.

The Chief Justice also did not have the issue before him, again, his role strictly ceremonial anyway. The oath could be administered by anyone.

---

The formal process is mandated by law for the meeting of the Joint Session of Congress to count and certify the Electoral College votes.

Any one representative and any one senator could have submitted a written objection to certifying Obama’s electoral college votes and both houses of Congress would have had to conduct investigations of those objections. No member of Congress out of 535 submitted a written objection to certifying Obama’s electoral college votes. These procedures are mandated by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.
You are correct that anyone can swear in a president but taking an oath of office before assuming the presidency is constitutionally mandated and the only person to take an oath of office on the 20th of January in 2009 was Barack Obama and it happened to be the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court who administered that oath.

[El Gato]

The formal process is mandated by law for the meeting of the Joint Session of Congress to count and certify the Electoral College votes

That is about the count, not eligibility.

Any one representative and any one senator could have submitted a written objection to certifying Obama’s electoral college votes and both houses of Congress would have had to conduct investigations of those objections. No member of Congress out of 535 submitted a written objection to certifying Obama’s electoral college votes. These procedures are mandated by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.

No the procedures are not mandated, but they are authorized. But even the 12th amendment is about the count of the electoral votes. Article II section 1 is about eligibility. As I read 3 USC 15

The objections mentioned are about the votes or the electors, not the eligibility of the person(s) voted for.

and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

There just is no provision in the Constitution that directly addresses enforcement of eligibility to the office of President. There is for Congress,

"Article I, Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members ..."

But not for President. No where in either the Constitution or the statute is anything analogous, mentioning Qualification, included.

[jamese777]

“That is about the count, not eligibility.”

---

Its about any issue under dispute that any Congressman or Senator wants to raise concerning not certifying a state’s electoral votes. Eligibility could certainly be such an issue.
The Democrats used the process in 2000 to object to the stoppage of the recount in Florida in Bush/Gore (with Gore presiding) but the Democrats’ objection failed for lack of a Senator willing to submit a written objection.

---

“But not for President. No where in either the Constitution or the statute is anything analogous, mentioning Qualification, included.”

---

And if a power is not specfically spelled out in the Constitution, that power is delegated to the states. It is the responsibility of the chief election official of each state to determine a candidate’s eligibility. If an ineligible candidate is on a ballot, it is the responsibility of losing candidates to challenge the election of an illegal candidate. Every state law that I know anything about has a statute of limitations on when a challenge to election results must be filed.

---

I would agree that it would make sense to determine eligibility before a candidate’s name is placed on a ballot or at least before counting his electoral college votes, not after.
If a candidate places their name on a ballot using fraud or deception, that is a criminal act. In the case of Obama, the fact that the state of Hawaii has vouched for his qualifications has been enough for 50 states and the District of Columbia unless and until someone disproves that information.

[El Gato]

The Democrats used the process in 2000 to object to the stoppage of the recount in Florida in Bush/Gore (with Gore presiding) but the Democrats’ objection failed for lack of a Senator willing to submit a written objection.

But again that was about counting the votes, not eligibility of the candidate. The whole congressional process, both as laid out in the Constitution, and as "detailed" by the statute, are about counting and certifying the count.

[El Gato]

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.

That's the theory, although I hate to dignify with the label, but we really don't know.

But the notion that only other candidates are directly harmed is just much judicial Bravo Sierra. We are all harmed if an ineligible usurper makes it into the oval office. Well except for the anti-American 'rat crowd. Has no one heard of a class action suit?

[El Gato]

Come on now, all you did was move a couple of words around in the Constitutional requirement to be president. You didn’t alter the meaning

I altered it to mean what you say it means, but it change the meaning. The oath need not be taken on January 20th at noon. If taken before, one does not become President until January 20th at noon. Thus taking the oath does not turn the President elect, nor anyone else for that matter, into the President. The clock and calendar do that, assuming the other requirements have been met.

The oath taking is not like an investiture, or a crowing. You, and the culture, are putting an emphasis on the ceremony not warranted by the Constitution.

President Bush gave him the keys to the White House and he carries the Nuclear Football with the launch codes to every warhead in the US arsenal. Legislative bills that he has signed have become Acts of Congress and Executive Orders that he has signed have been operationalized.

An Obama appointee is on the US Supreme Court, for heavens sake and she was confirmed with 68 votes in the US Senate. In fact ALL of Obama’s cabinet appointments have been confirmed. These are just a few of the acts of the president.

None of that serves to make an ineligible person suddenly eligible. He may be acting as President, but if not eligible, then not he's not President. remains to be proven of course, but that's why there is an "if" in that statement.

[El Gato]

So, is it your position that every movement order to Iraq and Afghanistan for every unit and soldier since Obama took office is "illegal"???

Can a person not empowered to order troops into combat do so lawfully?

[El Gato]

And if a power is not specfically spelled out in the Constitution, that power is delegated to the states

Only if it belonged to the states to begin with. Or their state constitution gives it to them. Otherwise, it's reserved to the people. You know, those folks who the courts say have no interest and no standing.