Posted on 10/02/2010 4:36:35 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
Don't know if it's true, but various sites are reporting that Lakin and his counsel, Paul Jensen, may be parting ways and Lakin may be acquiring an experienced military law counsel
If that is true, better late than never. If nothing else, it could pay dividends in the sentencing phase.
So where are the rest of the active duty who know full well they are following orders from a usurping foreign traitor?
Opinion masquerading as fact. Your posts are one continual joke.
Obama is not a natural born citizen. A fact.
Even guys with mush for brains know little mlo trolls.
And it has come to light that the Democrat Party never certified Obama "under the provisions of the United States Constitution." They left those very words out when all the past presidents had those words included in their certifying documents.
They knew Obama wasn't Constitutionally qualified.
If anything, Lakin could use it as evidence as that certification is an official U.S. government document.
For sure. But they are up against us which means they will automatically lose.There is just something about ...begin “right”.
“And it has come to light that the Democrat Party never certified Obama “under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” They left those very words out when all the past presidents had those words included in their certifying documents.”
Didn’t Nanzi sign 2 documents of certification: 1 “under Law” and 1 under “the Constitution”? I should think the two documents would necessarily create a legal fiction/ambiguity of some sort, but I’m not a lawyer. The presupposition of “law” requires definition.
Anyway, I think Lakin has a ‘habeus corpus’ type of show me the certificate standing. It is worth his or any officer’s life, since the absence of it may and has cost a whole bunch of military....and US Citizens of all ages.....ours.
We are a Constitutional Republic that is led by a President. If there is not a legal president at the head of the Republic , the Rupublic does not exist. The Col. has a very valid point, if obama is not the legal President ( he is not) he is not in violation of the military code. The court has no authority to convict the Col. as the evidence shows obama is not the legal President of the United States.
We are a Constitutional Republic that is led by a President. If there is not a legal president at the head of the Republic , the Rupublic does not exist. The Col. has a very valid point, if obama is not the legal President ( he is not) he is not in violation of the military code. The court has no authority to convict the Col. as the evidence shows obama is not the legal President of the United States.
We are a Constitutional Republic that is led by a President. If there is not a legal president at the head of the Republic , the Rupublic does not exist. The Col. has a very valid point, if obama is not the legal President ( he is not) he is not in violation of the military code. The court has no authority to convict the Col. as the evidence shows obama is not the legal President of the United States.
To date there has been no such ruling and such a ruling is certainly not going to come from the Court Martial of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army who refused to get on a plane and fly from Balitimore, Maryland to Charlotte, North Carolina and who then refused two orders to show up at his direct superior officers’ offices to explain why he didn’t get on that plane.
Didn’t Nanzi sign 2 documents of certification: 1 “under Law” and 1 under “the Constitution”? I should think the two documents would necessarily create a legal fiction/ambiguity of some sort, but I’m not a lawyer. The presupposition of “law” requires definition.
Anyway, I think Lakin has a ‘habeus corpus’ type of show me the certificate standing. It is worth his or any officer’s life, since the absence of it may and has cost a whole bunch of military....and US Citizens of all ages.....ours.
Governor Linda Lingle: “You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go and personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was in fact born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawai’i. And that’s just a fact. And yet people call up and email and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established, he was born here.”
It is not unreasonable to say such a ruling, or at least the necessary underlying procedure, may be coming.
Almost certainly, his handlers and the Socialist Democrats will arrange for a resignation prior to any finding of ineligibility in an attempt to salvage their gains.
Unfortunately for us, the "leaders" of the Republican party may then estimate the political cost of reversing many of the socialist gains to be more than they are willing to bear (in this regard, see Clinton impeachment).
“That prediction isn’t worth the price of a cup of coffee, but the large majority of officers I met would try very hard to do the right thing if they ended up on a board like this”
I agree with you. Most officers I know, in field grade, will not be a hammer down on a fellow officer. If they don’t sense cowardice, etc. they will do their best to make the sentence as light as possible. I used to think, but no longer do, that they would acquit. This cannot happen because the defense to make a case for acquital is not being allowed.
Simply because the Democrat party didn't fulfull their sworn duty and demand proof of eligibility doesn't mean members of the Armed Forces have no right to demand that proof as well.
It's just a simple matter of identification. It's not interference of the military into the policy decisions of a legitimate CIC.
If a man robs a bank but is not caught , does that mean he did not rob the bank? obama was born with dual citizenship and is disqualified from being the President. Regardless of whether or not a court hears a case against him,he is not the legal President of the United States.
Our Constitutional framework requires the disclosure of Obama’s eligibility as CIC.
Simply because the Democrat party didn’t fulfull their sworn duty and demand proof of eligibility doesn’t mean members of the Armed Forces have no right to demand that proof as well.
It’s just a simple matter of identification. It’s not interference of the military into the policy decisions of a legitimate CIC.
There has been no ruling by any official body that Obama is not eligible.
Any two members of Congress could have challenged Obama’s eligibility when Vice President Cheney was certifying his electoral college votes. None of the 535 members of Congress lodged an objection.
If there had been such a ruling by ANY official body, be it judicial or congressional, then your point would be well taken. But there has been no such ruling.
If a man robs a bank but is not caught , does that mean he did not rob the bank? obama was born with dual citizenship and is disqualified from being the President. Regardless of whether or not a court hears a case against him,he is not the legal President of the United States.
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by US v Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section I purposes, REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS...”—November 12, 2009.
This court’s decision was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which rejected the appeal and it has not been further appealed to the federal judiciary.
Obama doesn’t look disqualified to me. Both the Republican House Caucus and the Republican Senate Caucus have invited Obama to address them in his role as 44th President of the United States and no Court has ruled him to be ineligible.
That he is disqualified may be your personal opinion but that’s all it is, a personal opinion without the force of law to back it up.
Point me to the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution which states that two citizen parents are required in order to be eligible to be president.
LoL Troll. You always trot out the Indiana Ankeny BS.
From Ankeny again:
Footnote 14 - "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language..."
Because Wong Ark was not that's why.
The knuckleheads butt their own silly opinion.
As it says in quotes above, Justice Gray who wrote the Opinion never proclaimed him as a natural born citizen. He couldn't make that fly and neither can you, or can the clownish opinion from Indiana.
If one relates the entire footnote to the specific section it refers, the Court in no way butts its own opinion. If you've studied legal opinions at length, the kind of thing you are referring to is commonplace. They are noting that a court case did not specifically state “A” while also noting that the full documentation of the case provided a logic train that, for the case currently under review, leads to “A.”
Now you are free to disagree with that all you want. But I can only tell you what I've had to tell multiple clients in my life who insisted that previous court decisions were wrong: “Until another court says so, it counts a lot more than your opinion. If you want to try and win this, you need to respect that fact and deal with it.”
And best of luck to both of us in November. Whether you like it or not, we're on the same side. Different locations on that side, though, I suspect.
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by US v Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens”
Based on the language? Is that the best Indiana could do to articulate its case? The best Justice Gray did with Wong Ark was declare him a citizen, and noway did that he declare him a natural born citizen. Not only was those clowns for Indiana wrong on Wong Kim Ark, they even cited some dumb dicta from an illegal alien deportation case. The dingles from Indiana didn't stop there with their dishonesty, they misrepresent the facts by omission about Chester Arthur by giving a false impression because no one challenge him then he must have been qualified under the U.S. Constitution.
Now you are free to disagree with that all you want.
In spades because you are wrong.
But I can only tell you what I've had to tell multiple clients in my life who insisted that previous court decisions were wrong: “Until another court says so, it counts a lot more than your opinion. If you want to try and win this, you need to respect that fact and deal with it.”
The facts here is that Obama is not a natural born citizen and, as of consequence, is not legally qualified to hold presidential office. All the denying is coming from the statists in government you need to deal with that.
LoL Troll. You always trot out the Indiana Ankeny BS.
From Ankeny again:
Footnote 14 - “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language...”
Because Wong Ark was not that’s why.
The knuckleheads butt their own silly opinion.
As it says in quotes above, Justice Gray who wrote the Opinion never proclaimed him as a natural born citizen. He couldn’t make that fly and neither can you, or can the clownish opinion from Indiana.
You have every right to disagree with the Court’s decision but your personal opinion carries no weight in any court of law.
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.