Posted on 08/18/2009 12:57:17 PM PDT by pissant
-PJ
It is not true that there was no authority. It was true that their duty was not performed.
The congress and the USSC chief justice also had the authority by their roles to accept and swear in a candidate about whom they knew there were questions of qualifications.
It is amazing after all these threads that you or anyone could continue to ask that question.
Does the military justice system have any authority over a person who impersonates and officer? What if someone were to put on a uniform and pretend to be a colonel, major, or general, and then proceeded to issue orders. Would MPs arrest him?
So?...What if we have a person who is impersonating a Commander in Chief and issuing orders? Should MPs arrest him?
Would the military justice system have any authority over a person who was impersonating an officer and issuing false orders?
What if we have a person impersonating a Commander in Chief and issuing false orders?
Not a single state empowers their Secretary of State to do that.
The congress and the USSC chief justice also had the authority by their roles to accept and swear in a candidate about whom they knew there were questions of qualifications.
Based on what rule of law?
It is amazing after all these threads that you or anyone could continue to ask that question.
Maybe because we need something other than your opinion to go on.
Except that nothing in the Constitution or in the law gives the military the power to decide if the Constitution is being violated or not.
The premise in the article was that, given proof of ineligilibity, there is still no means to remove an elected president. I'm suggesting that, given proof, by definition of the Constitution the ineligible person is automatically no longer president, whether he agrees or not. In the case of disagreement, it would take the military to oust a *proven* usurper, by the authority I cited earlier.
Anything short of proof would be a coup.
Would you agree with that, or do you believe that electoral victory supersedes other qualifications?
-PJ
They are all empowered to approve the candidates placed on the ballot in their states.
Maybe you need a remedial civic lesson before you engage in your ridiculous objections to enforcing the law.
“Would the military justice system have any authority over a person who was impersonating an officer and issuing false orders?”
Yes, it would. That person, if military, could be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If a civilian, under Federal Laws on this subject.
“What if we have a person impersonating a Commander in Chief and issuing false orders?”
No, that would not a be a military matter. It would be a civil one. I’m sympathetic to your thinking, but being “unqualified” for office is not “impersonating” the POTUS - Congress and the Electorial Congress knew or disregarded knowledge about President Obama’s status. Civil authority has to deal with it, as it is NOT a military issue. Bottom line is that the MILITARY CANNOT REMOVE A POTUS FROM OFFICE. It would be wrong, a very bad precident, and unconstitutional.
If the POTUS is to be removed, it must be in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, we are just a banana republic.
“This is all predicated on proving that he fails to meet the natural-born qualification. Until that happens, it would be a coup.”
Yes, it would. Also, the military DOES NOT deal with matters like this. Civil authority does. So, even if the POTUS was declared to be unqualified, it still is not the military’s place to remove him.
Thank you for your response.
I am neither an attorney or military. I was just wondering.
Would they still see him as the Commander-In-Chief? If not, what would they do, commit insubordination and refuse his orders but still let him call himself the president? Or would they still call him Commander-In-Chief and violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution?
-PJ
“Would they still see him as the Commander-In-Chief? If not, what would they do, commit insubordination and refuse his orders but still let him call himself the president? Or would they still call him Commander-In-Chief and violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution?”
PJ - You are creating a hypothetical situation that I cannot answer with real certainty. For him to be declared “unqualified” would require some form of legislative or judicial ruling. IF that happened then it would incumbent on those bodies to take the necessary steps to remove the person from office. IF they failed to act it still WOULD NOT be the place of the military to do anything. The military must be under civil control.
Now if the SCOTUS were to rule the person constitutionally ineligible and the House impeached him with a subsequent trial and conviction by the Senate. Then I have no doubts about the military, being sworn to uphold the constitution, having to follow the lawful/constitutional proceedings of the Congress and backing them should the person refuse to vacate office and attempt to use his former position as CIC to order the military to protect him. In that case, he would be ignored because the congress would have removed him constitutionally.
Now should it become public knowledge that the POTUS was ineligible, it would not automatically cause the military to stop treating the person as CIC. Until constitutionally removed from office by congress, the military would still be bound to render respect to the POTUS...just as Bill Clinton was between the time of impeachment until his failed Senate trial. The military, no fan of Bill Clinton, did not stop treating him as CIC just because he was impeached. It would have taken a Senate conviction. It didn’t happen.
Now if the general public opinion was to turn on the POTUS because the nation was divided on his eligibility, I still think the military would stay clear of the issue. Public opinion doesn’t set military actions. So, although many in the military would not like the POTUS to continue to be CIC, we would NOT be involved in an ouster move and would continue to, maybe unhapply, treat him as CIC. An ouster would be unconstitutional based upon a public uprising, and we ARE NOT A BANANA REPUBLIC where the military tears down a president. Our constitution doesn’t allow it. Once again Congress would have to impeach and convict the man first.
Bottom line again is that we are sworn to defend the constitution. To use the military, even indirectly, to force a POTUS from office would be an unconstitutional act. To participate in such an action would be to break our oath. Civil authority, in the form of the judicial and legislative branches must be the ones to take action to rule a POTUS ineligible and to remove him via the constitution. The military has no authority to do so.
Remember that the founding fathers REALLY feared a large standing Army because it could be misused to suppress the people or to do a coup. As a member of the military, I cannot be part of any action that would give cause to citizens to fear the military. Removing a POTUS would be a bad thing for the citizens of the country to fear. IF the military can remove a “bad” POTUS, what would keep them from being corrupted and removing a “good” POTUS at another time. It is a path that should never be considered.
JW, for a lot of us, it's finally come to the point where we've had to choose personal integrity over convention, when it comes to our relationships.
It's not just "politics as usual" any more. We've actually been at war and under siege by an implacable domestic enemy that resolutely intends to destroy us and every last vestige of our constitutional republic, for quite some time.
Thing is, we on the right have only recently begun to come to grips with this harsh reality.
Since I've faced up to the reality that I'm actually under deadly attack from the leftist forces of evil, I've had an easier time of cutting my connections to liberals and leftists whom I formerly considered friends. Even blood kin have gotten the snip, sad to say.
-PJ
It seems the more proof you provide to these people the more resolute they become in their misdirected beliefs. You can't even draw a single agreement out of some of them that Obama has never accomplished anything in his life. This guy's response to that is “Obama’s the POTUS, how's that for an accomplishment?” And then you're like a dog chasing its own tail.
We have been at odds politically for a long time and I've always been amazed that we could separate our political views from our business and friendship, and I must admit his willingness to set differences aside has played no small part in the accomplishment.
Maybe you should consider that yourself? Or quote from the clause of the Constitution or the state or federal laws that support your claims.
All it will take is one state.
If you don’t know what the constitution requires by now and the method for enforcing that requirement, you are beyond anything I can do to convince you. I already mentioned it during this exchange and it has been all over these threads. I can’t help you if you don’t see it.
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.