Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur

I’ll let One Winged Shark answer for himself; probably should just let him answer because his answers are better than mine anyway, and he has more knowledge about the military.

My understanding is that they are all unlawful because they are all contrary to the Constitution. They must be obeyed because of the de facto officer doctrine because superficially Obama is being accepted as POTUS.

But Obama has never even LAWFULLY been certified as the winner of the electoral vote, which means the results of the election are still legally pending. At this point even if Obama was eligible the orders he’s given so far would be unlawful because neither Obama nor Biden “qualified” by Jan 20th since they had not been lawfully certified as the electoral winners.

IOW, Lakin can actually go beyond what he’s stated. He’s been asking IF Obama qualifies, when in fact we can know for certain that Obama at this point has NOT qualified. Knowing that to be the case, that may actually shift the balance to where there is a DUTY to disobey the orders. De facto officer only applies if it is not known that the person giving the orders is acting beyond their authority, correct? Once it is known that the person doesn’t lawfully hold the position, there is a duty to disobey, correct?


427 posted on 10/15/2010 5:32:48 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies ]


To: OneWingedShark; Red Steel

lol. I just realized that in that post I went from saying the orders had to be obeyed to saying they had to be disobeyed. lol. Obviously I’m still sorting this through in my mind.

Next time I’ll just wait for One Winged Shark, Red Steel, and the others to clue me in. lol


428 posted on 10/15/2010 5:37:33 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion
My understanding is that they are all unlawful because they are all contrary to the Constitution. They must be obeyed because of the de facto officer doctrine because superficially Obama is being accepted as POTUS.

And what clause of the Constitution pertains to filling sandbags?

Once it is known that the person doesn’t lawfully hold the position, there is a duty to disobey, correct?

Nope.

429 posted on 10/15/2010 5:44:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion

“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.


453 posted on 10/15/2010 8:40:24 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson