Army Calls ‘Birther’ Doc’s Bluff

Military.com ^ | April 9, 2010 | Bryant Jordan

[EveningStar]

It's guts ball time for an Army surgeon who has vowed not to deploy to Afghanistan with his unit unless President Obama provides evidence that he's a "natural born" citizen of the United States.

In response to previously published statements by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army presented an official letter of counseling that directs him to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., on April 12 to begin deployment preparations with his unit.

[BP2]

None of the above. I would have preferred a Ruth’s.
I used to do some work for one of them.

That's not some metaphor for having to do the dishes
in back because you couldn't pay the check, is it?

[STARWISE]

You’re absolutely right. That’s why it’s
so important that, as many do, folks save
notable item , because these things are
scrubbed .. and sometimes quickly.

They have an army of drones who’re assigned
to the task.

The link again

SARAH P. HERLIHY AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT:

GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE SARAH P. HERLIHY

http://aconservativeedge.com/2009/01/23/wikipedia-cabal-assails-natural-born-clause-in-constitution-for-the-obama-nation/

As if somehow globalization or the world situation should have ANYTHING at all to do with the sovereignty of this country and the intractable integrity of our precious Constitution.

“The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system.”

Damn them!

[parsifal]

No. Although, I never had to pay the check.

parsy, who says those were the days. . .

[Red Steel]

ROLF! That’s good. :-)

[STARWISE]

Another link:

http://www.cklawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/vol81no1/Herlihy.pdf

[STARWISE]

By the way, I think SCRIBD is Google.

[BP2]

The later language in United States vs, Wong Kim Ark is far more explicit and can only be read to conclude ...

LOL. You should just skip to the movie, because the 1896 version of his book "Conflict of Laws", used by Justice Gray in US v Ark ... pretty much just sucks ass and will be ignored by any SCOTUS Justice in determining the late-18th century meaning of "natural-born Citizen".

More tutelage here:
This is why amateurs shouldn't cite case law, they invariably get it wrong (re: OldDeckHand)

[little jeremiah]

HI birth certificates do not list a child’s religion; I don’t think any do.

[ConservativeMind]

No, it’s rationally construed as believing EveningStar believes 0bama is fully qualified as a Natural Born Citizen, something that, at best, from all available information, is an assumption, not a fact.

[ConservativeMind]

Hey, I believe over 1 billion people can be completely wrong.

I’m a Christian. I believe all Muslims are wrong.

So believing 100-150 million people are “insane or retarded” is really not just possible, it makes sense.

[BP2]

She's simply making the common sense and correct observation that no one can state that an Internet image alone is valid or not.

(facepalm) Look ... I know we've been over this before with you guys, but new lurkers are always popping in seeking the Truth, and there's always hope that ONE of you will snap out of Obama's trance for common sense to prevail ...

Obama's abbreviated "birth certificate" has never, EVER appeared before a Judge nor has it appeared in a Courtroom, neither after nor before the Inauguration. NOT ONE TIME!

Obama's abbreviated "birth certificate" has never appeared in public, other than to be temporarily "inspected" by Obama's hand-picked partisan FactCheck "reporters," ONE week before the DNC Convention.

It is sheer and utter stupidity to TRUST the Chain of Custody of a "document" given BY the LIAR-in-chief TO his 2008 Chicago Presidential Campaign partisan hacks, then TO hand-picked partisan hacks at FactCheck.org on Aug. 21, 2008, to then be accepted BY LIARS Nancy Pelosi and the DNC, to certify the Constitutional Eligibility of their candidate on August 28, 2008.

From to to by

ALL of whom had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER
actually appeared in Court to be accepted by a Judge as a legal "FACT".

[ConservativeMind]

So you believe “Truthers” are retarded, but might actually have a point with their concern about 0bama’s eligibility?

I think you are sounding retarded there.

[little jeremiah]

Your comments are like gems on these threads.

[PA-RIVER]

The court of public opinion will be much more important.

Imagine a man going to Leavenworth because he dared to ask the Messiah to show his birth certificate? That's going to look like King George crushing a peon for standing up to him. Americans are going to flip when that happens.

After all, the First Lady said Obamas home country is Kenya. This man just wants Obama to prove her wrong.

[wideminded]

A doctor told me that what he may be hiding is his legal race. Apparently at the time of his birth, a child of mixed race was designated to be the race of the mother, which would list him as white.

Doesn't make sense because the race of the child was not one of the fields on a 1961 Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth.

[William Tell]

Mr Rogers said: "It isn’t for a standing army to decide who is their CINC."

I think you are very wrong here. Every soldier is responsible for recognizing who his commanders are at all levels of command.

Just for a moment let's hypothesize that Obama is not eligible to be President or Commander-in-Chief. In such a hypothetical case, what obligation does a soldier have to obey his commands?

If you KNEW that Obama was not eligible to be President or Commander-in-Chief, what obligation would YOU have to obey his commands or to obey laws which he had signed?

[bgill]

You have to wonder who is enforcing the orders to compel him to report for duty?

That's the $64,000 question.

[El Gato]

While I never served on a court martial I know others who did and they took the assignment very seriously. All they were concerned with was the facts presented in evidence and whether or not prosecution proved their case. I don't expect the officers assigned to LCOL Lakin's court martial will be any different

Well, I never served on a Court Martial panel, but I did serve on a panel in a proceeding that was run just like a Court Martial. I was the junior member of the panel. The senior member was a bird colonel. (O-6).

We asked questions, we looked beyond the raw evidence, and looked to larger issues. Mainly in setting the punishment recomendation. The factual issues were pretty much stipulated. We considered not just what the Airman "deserved" but also what was in the best interest of the command and the Air Force.

I expect these officers will be no different.

Yes the judge will be an officer, a JAG officer. But he/she will have no where near the power that a civilian trial judge has.

[BP2]

This is an excerpt from one of the best-researched essays on the topic of the office of President and “Natural Born Citizen” qualification, written by Charles Gordon titled “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma”.

It was published in 1968, during the time when then Gov. George Romney of Michigan ran for the 1968 Republican Party nomination for President.

Here’s the excerpt, with my emphasis added to highlight the important sections:

There remains the traditional method of construing the Constitution
through a ruling of the federal courts. Under the Constitution,
those courts exercise judicial power which extends “to all Cases, in
Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” However, until
an actual controversy develops there is no possibility of obtaining a
ruling by the federal courts. Those courts have always interpreted
their constitutional mandate as precluding the rendering of advisory
opinions. And they have not regarded this limitation as modified
by the statutory authority for declaratory judgments. The statute restricts
such declaratory judgments to cases of “actual controversy.”
This authorization has been read somewhat restrictively, and declaratory
relief has usually been granted only to one actually threatened with
sanctions or with imminent impairment of status or of personal or
property rights.

Thus, the alternative has been for those who aspire to the Presidency
to press their candidacy in the belief that citizenship acquired
at birth abroad qualifies them as natural-born citizens. Since no such
candidacy has until now developed beyond the speculative stage, there
has not yet been any occasion to test this belief. Such a test could
have developed when the candidacy of Governor Romney was being
actively pressed. Now that he has withdrawn from the presidential
contest, a test will be deferred until some future candidate in a similar
situation pursues his candidacy to the advanced stage of a preference primary
or an election ballot. I shall not attempt to chart in detail all the
possible avenues which could be explored in seeking such a test. However,
a few major routes are readily apparent.

The election mechanisms established by the various states may
provide the initial opportunity for obtaining a judicial ruling. Every
state has an election board or officer to supervise the election process.
Contests could develop at two stages in that process. In the first place,
some states now provide for a presidential preference primary to
select delegates to the national nominating conventions of the major
political parties. Often, it is necessary to file petitions for delegates
committed to a particular candidate. A state election board usually
can pass on the eligibility of one who seeks to appear on the ballot.
Its ruling for or against the qualifications of a particular candidate can
be challenged in the state's courts. The books are full of state cases
involving disputes as to various aspects of primary elections. And
in recent years the federal courts have underscored their interest in the
federal constitutional aspects of state elections, even when they only
concern party primaries. Indeed, a number of statutes implement the
authority of federal courts to intervene in election disputes where
deprivation of rights is alleged.

Since interpretation of the presidential qualification clause involves
a federal constitutional question, such an issue would unquestionably
wind up in the federal courts, either by an initial suit in such
courts, by removal of actions commenced in state courts, or by
Supreme Court review of a state court's decision. And it is not
inconceivable that a candidate, as well as the party apparatus itself,
might encourage an administrative ruling at the state level in order to
justify a “friendly” suit seeking a judicial pronouncement. Indeed,
an adverse ruling would be an obvious predicate for a declaratory judgment
suit in the federal courts.

If a judicial determination can be obtained, an early presentation of
the issue in connection with a primary election would be desirable. If
there is no judicial intervention at that level, the likelihood of a
judicial ruling doubtlessly would diminish. It would still be possible, of
course, to challenge the qualifications of a party's nominee through various
state remedies seeking to strike his name from the ballot in particular states.

But once a major party becomes committed to a Presidential candidate,
the stakes become so momentous that the courts
might hesitate to intervene. Nevertheless the possibility of a judicial
contest at this stage of the election process cannot be discounted. There
is no certainty that the Supreme Court, in its present activist mood,
would shrink from entering what some may regard as a “political
thicket” to decide any controversy, merely because the decision will have
far-reaching consequences. Therefore it is conceivable that a judicial
holding might be obtained, particularly if it is favorable to the candidate.

Finally, it may develop that there has been no judicial determination and
that a person with the disputed qualifications is actually elected
President. Some ingenious soul might resort to judicial proceedings
to restrain the electoral college from voting or to block the new President's
induction, but it hardly seems likely that such an effort would
be seriously regarded. More significant is the possibility that after
the new President takes office someone may seek to oust him through
the ancient writ of quo warranto - challenging an office holder's right
to his office - or its modern equivalents. Although it has no specific
statutory sanction, such a writ is still recognized in federal practice.
But at this stage of the election process, the possibility of a judicial
expression is so remote as to be virtually nonexistent. In the first place,
a person seeking to launch such a contest would have to overcome the
seemingly insuperable hurdle of legal standing to sue. In the federal
practice his lack of direct interest would seem fatal. More importantly,
an effort to vitiate the free choice of the American people in electing
a President would entail the gravest consequences to the national
security and order and to the balance of authority in our scheme of
government. Although courts have adjudicated controversies involving
titles to governorships and other high offices, it seems likely that at
this stage the federal courts would regard it as the type of political
controversy in which they should not intercede. Another possible,
but far-fetched, line of attack might seek to challenge the validity of laws
enacted over such a President's signature.

It is quite possible, of course, that the courts might find the issue
political and nonjusticiable at any milestone of consideration. However,
the climate for obtaining judicial guidance would be infinitely better if
such a ruling is solicited at the earliest stages of the electoral process,
before an overpowering national interest for stability has developed.

In the end, I personally can see no other alternative than for the Courts to decide this, as Congress is too partisan to seriously tackle this question. Despite nearly 30 attempts by Congress to legally define or otherwise alter the interpreted meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" since the 1870s, no Bills have ever made it to the floor for an actual full Congressional vote.

[edge919]

People are looking too hard to try to figure out what Obama is hiding. The only thing is that he can’t prove he was born in Hawaii.