Posted on 07/28/2009 9:43:04 AM PDT by MindBender26
Behind the scenes, at many military bases across the country and around the world, a not-too quiet challenge is developing against Barack Obama and his questionable qualifications to be President of the United States.
Most FReepers are familiar with the ongoing civil litigation against Obama. Plaintiffs claim he is not constitutionally qualified to be president because he does not meet the legal description of a “natural-born citizen.”
Obama’s lawyers have never entered pleadings on the MERITS of the plaintiffs’ cases. They oppose the plaintiffs’ suits on the issue of “standing.” They claim the plaintiff’s do not have a right to sue. Generally, that “standing” claim is well-founded. Giving every citizen the right to sue the president would be a nightmare. Can you imagine George Bush defending 10,000,000 individual suits by Dems over the war in Iraq?
But recently, one plaintiff had a strong chance of being given “standing to sue.” The plaintiff was an Army Reserve Major, Stefan Frederick Cook, from the Tampa area. His call-up to active duty positioned him as a person who could demonstrate the likelihood of real damages if Obama was not a legally-elected president. Cook could be killed, wounded or even charged as a war criminal if Obama was not legally the president.
He sued, claiming Obama was not legally qualified to be President, not legally qualified to order him to do anything.
The judge was set to begin preliminary hearings when the government lawyers dropped a legal bomb. They canceled Maj. Cook’s orders for the obvious purpose of denying him standing. With Major Cook longer on activation orders, the case was moot and was dismissed by the judge.
This hugely significant legal surrender by the government was noticed by every lawyer in the country watching this issue. It also immediately became an enormous topic of conversation in every barracks in America. If Obama was willing to cancel one soldier’s deployment orders because of a court challenge to his right to be president, what would he do the next time someone raised the issue?
As a result, service members and lawyers began action immediately. It is believed that as many as 100 lawyers are preparing to file litigation such as Maj. Cook’s. This litigation would be in many courts across the country and put a huge strain on the Obama-DNC legal team. Do they cancel 100 sets of orders this week, only to face 1000 suits next week?
Even worse, sources close to some of the potential litigants tell me that at least four lawyers, including one very well known conservative Vietnam veteran-lawyer, are seeking enough clients so they can petition the court for the establishment of a Class of Plaintiffs in a proposed class action case. If that happens, then every military service member on orders for SWA would be covered.
At that point, Obama has no viable legal option. He has proven himself unwilling to try the case on its merits, and willing to cancel orders to avoid having to face discovery. How can he be POTUS and CINC if he cannot issue orders to the military he claims to command?
From there, every time Obama tries to act under color of law in any matter, military of not, someone sues and Obama’s action ceases.
This is an important turning point in a case of incredible constitutional and legal significance.
As I see it, 0bama has two choices at this point....proceed through the courts or quash this “uprising”. Given his actions to date, I don’t see any way he goes to court and is forced to enter his BC into evidence.
Thus the interesting question is how he’s going to make this issue go away.
“And the officers appointed over me.”
That’s the issue for the enlisted. The officers are challenging NCA, the President’s authority to issue legal orders to the officers. Case law says that each officer individually must determine whether issued orders are legal. It’s why Calley was convicted of war crimes, but not his men.
As such, if Obama’s not who he says he is, and isn’t qualified Constitutionally to be President, no orders issued by the CINC are legal. The officers have a duty to the Constitution, not the President or the government.
Well, Orly Taitz did have over 120 military reservists and active duty lined up in a previous case she was building, now looks like the gates are open.
God be with them.
It is very irresponsible for soldiers to follow orders they believe are invalid.
Soldiers are citizens too, and have absolutely every right to confirm their orders are from legitimate sources.
If this happened under Bush or McCain, we would call it mutiny because the required proof of eligibility had already been shown, addressed, and the issue settled. Remember: McCain faced a comparable challenge, showed his papers, Congress addressed the issue and a solid conclusion was reached.
It’s not that BHO is disliked, it’s that mounting piles of circumstantial evidence is demanding presentation of proof of eligibility, and that demand is systematically denied in ways that just keeps piling on more circumstantial evidence. All the more reason to get the issue settled once and for all. McCain did, why doesn’t Obama?
Are you sure about that?
Let’s say your CO, a sub commander, got a launch order, but figured he wasn’t going to follow it because he didn’t think his order came from the President, but a Usurper?
How about a couple of captains in a missile silo. They get a command to launch, one turns the key, the other doesn’t.
This isn’t a laughing party issue. The NCA has to be rock solidly established, or defense doctrine collapses throughout the military.
I doubt it said he would be a natural born citizen. It was probably talking about US citizenship and I really wish people would stop posting this. He was born OUT OF WEDLOCK. 1 year residency required by Ann before his birth. This repeated BS about the law is one of the things that makes Birthers look crazy and irresponsible as the media with a reckless disregard for the truth.
In addition, NO UK CITIZENSHIP For Obama if born in the US unless Ann went to Kenya and got a customary marriage..this marriage would have surely been valid in the US and would effect the US citizen requirement - which would not work in his favor.
Absolutely incorrect. That is ONE definition that no one doubts. It remains to be seen and will have to be adjudicated by the court to determine if something else can be considered. The Wong case decimated the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause.
I’m pretty sure it said natural born. I have been looking for it - it’s on one of the many, many threads about this matter today.
Whether of not O is their commander in chief is the question still to be decided... because Mr. Obama ignores the simple request to prove it.
If any soldier receives orders, he must obey them, but he has the DUTY to ensure they are legal orders.
If a soldier, even one who was a plaintiff in such a case, received orders to report to Iraq, they have a duty to obey those orders, regardless of where the case is, short of a definitive verdict... and I'm sure they would report.
The duty to follow orders does not remove the ability to petition the courts to ensure those orders emanate from a legal source.
It is very irresponsible for Freepers to support these actions. I don’t think the birth certificate “issue” is real, but even if it is, there are plenty of civilians to pursue it.
No one knows if the birth certificate issue is real. The reason we do not know is not because of FReepers or anyone else other than the President himself. The President could have settled this issue months ago. The reason there are still questions about the birth certificate is because Mr. Obama will not disclose it.
The reason military people must be the ones to question this is because they are among the very few Americans with standing to be recognized as proper plaintiffs in this matter.
Don't worry about them. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coasties; they are accustomed to getting the dirty, thankless jobs!
Totally legally incorrect.
Natural-born means a citizen at birth, not made so later by operation of law ("Naturalization"... to be made as if "natural")
I'll go into it more later, but it much more than "on soil by two citizens." If it was, John McCain would not qualify.
Yes, people are usually born at birth.
Interesting. Very good article.
But first the oaths states: do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
......#1 oath is to the Constitution
In that the POTUS, who takes a similar Oath swears to support the Constitution.......Which Obama is not doing clearly.....
......#2 is 2nd because a domestic enemy could be the POTUS
.....the founding fathers had thought this stuff thru, becuase they lived thru it 1st.
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.