Skip to comments.U.S. soldier gagged on prez's eligibility
Posted on 03/03/2009 7:19:10 PM PST by Man50D
A member of the U.S. military whose suspicions about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president prompted him to sign onto a legal demand being sent to Attorney General Eric Holder has been silenced.
Attorney Orly Taitz, the California activist who through her DefendOurFreedoms.us foundation is assembling the case, told WND today she's been informed one of the members of the military has been ordered by commanding officers not to speak with media.
The officer's identity was withheld to prevent further actions against him.
However, Taitz confirmed to WND there would be no lack of plaintiffs in her action, which challenges Obama to prove by what authority he operates as commander in chief.
Another active-duty soldier, who identified himself as Staff Sgt. Alan Craig James, volunteered to be identified publicly as a plaintiff in the case, Taitz said.
She said she already has a list of 101 volunteers in her case demanding Obama's proof of eligibility.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I do not support any soldier who has taken this position, although I believe that their position may be correct as a point of constitutional law.
Soldiers must bear true faith and allegience to the Constitution of the United States and to the Officers appointed over them. That includes the President of the United States, and until some competent authority declares that the President is not entitled to his office, they are bound by their oath to support him.
We cannot tolerate a Legion that may, for whatever reasons, declare its allegience to a Prelate or Caesar, in lieu of the legally constitued Government. If a soldier truly believes that he cannot serve the constituted Government, then he must resign. Officers may do this at any time after they have served their initial obligation. Enlisted members must wait until the period of their enlistment is expired. Once they have been discharged, then they may pursue their objections as may any citizen.
If I were sitting on their Court Martial, I would vote to convict, even though I sympathize with their cause. It has to work that way if we are to preserve the Republic.
I hate to be the one to say this but.... that dog won’t hunt. ;-)
Again, I find your post somewhat convincing...asking the above almost rhetorically.
Compare that to a true Commander in Chief
They swore to uphold the Constitution, yet you would convict them for doing so.
To preserve this Republic, it has to work the opposite of the way you believe.
You, as juror, would need to bone up on the rights you have in that capacity.
The Ninth Amendment (a part of the Bill of Rights) sometimes called the Silent Amendment provides us with all sorts of goodies like trial by jury, presumption of innocence until proven guilty etc.
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which of course means that just because there are enumerated rights for the people that these enumerated rights are not our only rights.
Clinton was a wise, virtuous saint compared to 0bama.
So long as those authorities are eligible to the offices.
If these authorities are not eligible and thus userpers it is the duty of the officers to defend the Constitution against those userpers isn’t it?
The Officer’s Oath says NOTHING about bearing true faith and allegiance to Officers appointed over them. Their ONLY obligation (in the Oath) is to support and defend the Constitution. The NCO/Enlisted Oathe is a different matter, however.
Lets hope that isn't true.
I have an intense dislike of the Clinton's to this day. The dislike they held for our folks in uniform, was at the top of my list.
The fact the Mr Clinton raped a woman ( at least one that is known) and got away with it is also near the top.
The duty is to uphold the Constitution, yes. As of now, eligibility is presumed, and he is considered duly elected. The higher up the ranks you go, the more the brass will take a VERY dim view of a “birther” challenge, because it undermines the chain of command & good order & discipline. (It is a disgrace that we don’t have a clear system to establish eligibility.) The article doesn’t clarify that the named plaintiffs of high rank are retired.
But it does occur to me: Let’s say an officer was charged with an Article 88 violation re: his speech about the President. The officer would then have standing to move to dismiss the charge, on the grounds that he was speaking of someone ineligible to be President.
I would hope he never made it Scout Sniper School if I was giving a speech?
A stunning contrast.