Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
WHO specifically gave that order???
Dont waste the keystrokes on this guy. He could watch Obama go to Philadelphia and burn an original copy of the constitution and piss on the ashes, and then report to Obama for duty the next day to hang any soldier that objected.
So where does his present Indonesian citizenship come into play here, “naturalization”, hmmm???
Yeah, little cool-aid drinker jamese, like when the whole Central and S.American nations are going after Arizona, WOW???
Nice deflection.
Yoda notwithstanding, “citizen” does not equal “natural born citizen”...
Any attempt to conflate the two terms is an inadmissible argument before the Court.
Bullshit.
Screw off.
While you run away.
And that was exactly what was promised by judge Carter until he got a "3AM phone call on the red phone" from Bob Bauer in the White House, and he then changed his mind 180 degrees!!!
I didn’t say citizen = NBC. I did say, and the courts have used the same terms, that born citizen, native citizen and NBC are interchangeable.
The Supreme Court has already spent pages discussing the meaning of NBC. They made it clear - and they have a strong argument - that the Founders were thinking of the common law phrase ‘natural born subject’, and substituted citizen for subject since we no longer have a king.
If the Supreme Court is right - and by definition, they are in interpreting legal phrases in America - then a Natural Born Citizen can have two alien parents, provided the parents are here “in amity”.
However, there are two classes of citizens - those born, and those made. The latter, naturalized citizens, cannot be President.
No, I'd stick around here so I could laugh at you some more.
No, Judge Carter heard the arguements and decided they were without merit. No threats or phone calls needed.
Among other things, yes. That was defined when the Department of Defense was established and has been further defined since then.
And is that SecDef required to be appointed by the President, according to the Constitution?
Indeed he is. Title 10 > Subtitle A > Part I > Chapter 2 > § 113 of the U.S. code. But the Secretary of Defense is appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate. What about it?
Remember that manual that One Winged Shark quoted from, where the “filling sandbags” quote even came from - saying that all orders right down to filling sandbags are the execution of the entire chain of command, stemming from the authority of the Constitution?
I do.
How do you think that manual came up with that? Do you think it has anything to do with the laws that Congress has passed regarding who authorizes what in the military?
Without knowing exactly what book he was quoting from it's hard to say. But I would point out that whatever book it was, it said the President's authority extends through all chains of command. It did not say that all commands derive their authority from the commander-in-chief.
Lets play nice boys. This is exactly what our Indonesian president wants, Americans fighting each other.
“But Obama has never even LAWFULLY been certified as the winner of the electoral vote...”
I like you, but that simply isn’t true. Every member of Congress agrees and acts on the basis that Obama is President. CONGRESS determines what must be done during an election of the President, and in some cases, they can elect a President on their own.
There were NO OBJECTIONS to Obama’s victory. They must be made in writing, and Cheney didn’t receive any...so he didn’t call for any from the floor. That does NOT mean Obama is illegally serving as President.
You’ve veered off into Fantasyland.
Butter, I didn’t see that. I’ve been overwhelmed and not reading these threads the way I ususally do.
(Freepmail me or send me a link to what you’re referring to, please.)
Anyone smearing your integrity and motives - I hardly know what to say. It’s as clear as a clear morning what your motives are, and they are a desire for justice and truth to prevail, with courage and determination. At a great deal of personal risk and sacrifice.
All such an attack does is make one wonder what the attacker’s motivations are!
So lets try to unite on that agreement. If I'm wrong, let me know.
We have our differences, but we can still be friends. And if Obama had a campfire and put the constitution in it, pissed on it and ordered you to roast Marshmallows over it, you would. So we differ. I wouldn't. Lakin wouldn't. Big deal. Enjoy your marshmallows.
“If Obama was born on Mars, it wouldn’t repeal Obamacare, nor would it repeal Lakin’s orders.”
As a true Benedict Arnold and DOJ Holder brigade you still trying to defend your dear Fuerher with disinformation:!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2607561/posts
You two do some very fine work!!
>>“`course there’s many people here how think that’s a bit much. I disagree with them”
>
>As a member (reserve) of the Armed Forces, I must warn you that such thinking will not be allowed on my watch.
But you will stand by and allow the near-complete disregard for the Constitution by the Executive & Legislative branches and the arrogant super-constitutional, super-legislative, dictatorial tyranny assigned themselves by the Supreme Court?
If so, then you are then a lying oath-breaker who puts his allegiance to the Government instead of the Constitution AND who will not protect it [the Constitution] from *all* domestic enemies.
I was enlisted for 9-years and one of the reason I got out was precisely because of that arrogant hypocrisy displayed by my ‘superiors.’ Sure they’ll whine about the unconstitutionality of TARP, Obamacare, etc but do nothing to stop it because, apparently, their oath TO THE CONSTITUTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN JUST WORDS. [/Disgust]
>We ARE NOT a banana republic.
Yet we will do *nothing* to repeal/redress things like:
- Roe v. Wade; wherein the judiciary made a defacto addition to the Constitution disregarding Amendment 10.
- Keelo v. New London; wherein the Supreme Court: [defacto] repealed the portion of the 5th amendment governing eminent domain.
- The current understanding of the “Commerce clause.”
- GM/Chrysler takeovers, wherein the Executive unilaterally violated bankruptcy law AND the legal document backing the bonds [I forgot the technical term].
- ObamaCare, which has MULTIPLE Constitutional issues; one of which is that it BECOMES A FELONY *NOT* TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
- Social Security which has proven to be *NOTHING* but a giant slush-fund for Congress; honestly a private entity using those accounting practices would be busted and put in prison!
- Securing the border; the Constitution [in Art 4, Sec 4] says: “The United States shall [...] protect each of them [individual States] against Invasion”
- The utter rejection of about two Centuries of American Jurisprudence, and more if you count English Common Law, that the serving of a sentence for a crime “cleans the slate” insofar as the law is concerned;
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968#Prohibited_persons
>IF the POTUS is ineligible (and I think he is) he should and must be removed, but in a peaceful and constitutional (not revolutionary) manner.
If he’s *not* eligible then he’s not REALLY the President and he therefore needn’t be removed by impeachment. Furthermore, it becomes patently obvious that there is TREASON in the high echelons of the government. Treason is the ONLY criminal law defined by the Constitution and is defined as:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT.”
And what could give the enemies of the US more aid & comfort than the invalidation of the ENTIRE Chain-of-Command of all US military components?
>As much as I support LTC/Dr. Lakin’s quest, I adamantly oppose those that expouse lawlessness and violence.
I am *NOT* advocating lawlessness; EVERYTHING I said in the previous post is supported by the Constitution and/or the Declaration of Independence.
I *AM* advocating violence SHOULD THEY REFUSE TO ACQUIESCES TO THE LIMITS OF THEIR POWER PROSCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION; history has shown, quite poignantly, that those in power are disinclined to surrender that power.
Justice Thomas said in a hearing I think, something of a joke.... but I don't think it was. He said something like: "We are avoiding that one".
If I may though, Justice Thomas used the word "evading" not avoiding, even more interesting isn't it?
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.