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

To: butterdezillion

“He was convicted because Denise Lind ruled that valid Presidential authorization is irrelevant to the authority to issue combat deployment orders.”

No. She ruled that the President of the United States and those underneath him have authority, and that authority continues until someone shows the proper authority (Congress) evidence that Obama is not the President. Therefor, otherwise lawful orders remain lawful orders, pending Obama’s Constitutional removal by Congress.

Until proper authority removes him, he IS the President. And a court martial board lacks Constitutional authority to investigate or act. THAT RESPONSIBILITY lies with Congress!


194 posted on 12/16/2010 3:09:18 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
No. She ruled that the President of the United States and those underneath him have authority, and that authority continues until someone shows the proper authority (Congress) evidence that Obama is not the President. Therefor, otherwise lawful orders remain lawful orders, pending Obama’s Constitutional removal by Congress

That's not exactly what she said, although what she did say is still poorly reasoned. She said the CinC shares authority over the military with Congress and the SecDef, and that these bodies exercise independent authority over the military. The problem is that two of the charges were not inseparable from the CinC, nor does the co-authority of Congress or SecDef substitute for the authrotiy of the CinC. He doesn't have to be removed in order for his putative authority to be invalidated.

And a court martial board lacks Constitutional authority to investigate or act. THAT RESPONSIBILITY lies with Congress!

This is factually incorrect. The judicial system has authority over cases of law, equity and controversies. Second, the Constitution prescribes no power to Congress over the vetting of presidential eligiblity or the establishment of citizenship. The court had no expectation of removing the president from office, only in establishing whether this officer was legally justified in disobeying orders emanating from illegitimate chain of command compromised at the very top by a constitutionally ineligible CinC.

204 posted on 12/16/2010 3:22:56 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

But she wouldn’t allow Lakin to show any evidence that Obama is not Constitutionally able to “act as President”.

She disallowed that because she said it was “irrelevant”. Just as I said. She claimed that whether or not there is combat troop authorization from a Constitutionally-authorized President is irrelevant to the combat deployment orders.


205 posted on 12/16/2010 3:24:06 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | 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