“If the orders of Lakin’s immediate superiors were to support Obama’s strategery, then Lakin has a constitutional right to challenge the lawfulness of that order on the basis of Obama’s illegitimacy.”
You cannot refuse to obey orders, and then say, “I don’t think he is a real officer/president/NCO/etc!” Not without proof. And even then, the deployment is fully backed by the US government, including Congress.
Lakin stated his objection PRIOR to refusing to obey orders. Lawfulness of orders, as the UCMJ is written, can be challenged via the authority of the chain of command.
Not without proof.
There IS proof that Obama doesn't fit the Constitutional definition of NBC. The court just doesn't want to allow it to be presented in the court martial, nor does it want to grant Lakin due process for additional discovery.
And even then, the deployment is fully backed by the US government, including Congress.
The backing of Congress doesn't make the authority of command immune from being challenged.
>>“If the orders of Lakin’s immediate superiors were to support Obama’s strategery, then Lakin has a constitutional right to challenge the lawfulness of that order on the basis of Obama’s illegitimacy.”
>
>You cannot refuse to obey orders, and then say, “I don’t think he is a real officer/president/NCO/etc!” Not without proof. And even then, the deployment is fully backed by the US government, including Congress.
What about the adoption? He himself claims to have been raised in Indonesia; the school records we’ve seen so far list him as Indonesian.
(International law affixes to the adoptee the nationality of the adopter.)
Therefore his nationality *IS* legally questionable, no?