Posted on 04/09/2010 4:27:11 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
Have you ever served in the military?
This was a real ballsy play by the Flight Surgeon. He’s got 18 years in. No 20, no money. Re Ft Hood, when did this guy convert to be a Mooselimb?
Since you ducked out of our earlier conversation, perhaps you missed where I pointed out that both of these accusations are incorrect. Tammy Duckworth did not say Obama was born in Indonesia; the author of the article himself has stated that that was his error, not hers. And Obama has not reported that he was born in two different hospitals. Obama has consistently stated that he was born at Kapiolani. I'm at a loss where you even got this idea.
But since you keep repeating the latter claim as factual, despite being informed that there have never been any such statements as you claim, I invite you to provide links to any of these supposed "conflicting accounts" where Obama named some other hospital as the place of his birth.
A president was qualified and duly elected. The 12th and 20th Amendments no longer apply.
He( ft hood shooter terrorist) was always a Mooselimb, I believe, but then as so many here he couldn’t score with the women, so he listens to an American mooselimb in pakistan about Jhihad hoping to score big time in the afterlife after he does his evil deed.
Maybe it would be easier to get these guys a lifetime coupon for a call girl?
Now you're thinking like Orly! (the court may decide he injured himself with his own behavior)
Maybe you would consider yourself primarily white, but people around you would treat you as if you were black because you looked black.
No, I never did. I have a brother who was in the Air Force for twenty years so I do realize that it is an entirely different world from being a civilian.
LOL, I knew you were going to knock that out of the park.
“Not a citizen, a British subject, as that’s how British nationality law was until 1982.”
If Obama’s parents had desired, or if Obama desired, he could have applied to the British government and, as a child of a British citizen, he would have been registered as a British citizen. This is similar to my sister, who was born in Germany while my parents were stationed there in the 50s. If my Mom had been German (she wasn’t), and if she had divorced my Dad (she didn’t) and remained in Germany and raised my sister there, my sister would have been a German.
This is pretty thin stuff for overturning a national election! And if a lawyer argued that Obama’s loyalty was divided between the USA & the UK, he would be laughed out of court. NO ONE believes Obama has any loyalty to the UK!
You also write, “AGAIN, since you like quoting US v. Ark...”
Actually, I have NEVER quoted whatever case you are citing - but that would interfere with your preprogrammed talking points!
Red Steel wrote: “Here’s a fact. Obama received British citizenship at birth and became a Kenyan citizen a couple of years later.”
Horseshit. Kindly show me Obama’s British or Kenyan passport or citizenship papers. You want a court to overturn a national election because Obama REALLY FEELS BRITISH!
Obama has a screwed up mind, but anyone who claims he has a foreign allegiance to the UK is insane. Likewise, while he has some mild fondness for Kenya, he lets his half-brother live in a slum there. No, Obama doesn’t think of himself as a subject of Kenya!
El Gato writes, “The supposed foreign birth was a red herring, and distracted the public, the reporters and even the opposition, from examining his father’s citizenship status.”
You cannot have one without the other. If anyone had cared about his father’s status, they would have been alerted to the possible conflict by the concerns about Arthur’s birth. But no one cared.
It was also a point made in a case presented to the Supreme Court in Dec 2008...I think you will remember how quickly Obama’s election was overturned then!
Candor7 writes “You select facts and therefore you have NONE. Get lost , idiot.”
You can’t find much stronger reasoning than that!
MestaMachine complains that I said that “ANYONE who was a citizen at the time of Adoption (“No person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...”) could become President...”, and calls it “That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen on any thread on this issue whether you agree or disagree with anything else ever said on any of them.”
Sorry, but it is true. If a court looks at the meaning of natural born citizen, they will conclude born in America suffices. In part because anyone who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted was allowed to be President, regardless of where he was born. If that was true - and it was, read the Constitution - then it is hard to argue that someone should be removed from office because his father wasn’t born in the USA, or a US citizen. If at one time a person born abroad could be President, then being born naturally in the US with a father who wasn’t a citizen is probably OK too.
You will note that many cases have been brought, and none have gone anywhere. The LTC in this thread has no case!
I also find it a bit odd to see someone who joined FR in 2008 calling me an impostor. As impostors go, I’ve been around a long time - Aug 1998, with over 11,000 comments.
|
> the court may decide he injured himself with his own behavior Are you PAID to come on here and make stupid remarks, or do you just throw that part in for free?! LOL.
If ANYONE has direct Injury without defying authority to show Injury, it would be Alan Keyes. But his cases are bogged down in the litigious food chain. SO, a different angle, in a different Venue (likely starting at the USDCDC once Lt Col Lakin is court-martialed in Military Court), is a smart choice at this point. Sorry ... you Lefties don't own the patent on DBKP. Quo Warranto in challenging a sitting president is a SMART, yet unproven legal strategy in this situation, as it's never been weighed upon by the SCOTUS on a sitting president (likely because of Political Question). But most legal strategists think that challenging the validity of a sitting president's qualifications via Quo Warranto at this point is the best route, as proposed by Charles Gordon when Gov. George Romney of Michigan ran for the 1968 GOP nomination for President.
Most people know of Rosa Parks and her open defiance of the law; it received much publicity (photos BELOW). Far fewer people know of Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, Claudette Colvin and Mary Louise Smith in Browder v. Gayle. Civil rights activist attorneys put together Browder v. Gayle (citing Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 [1948]), using Browder et al. as the Plaintiffs to show Injury and be tried in a better Venue, starting at the District Court level in 1956.
Until such time though, perhaps you should just STFU!
|
Since the present Congress is dominated by Democrats, Biden would be President for all intents and purposes until such time as Congress acts.
That would mean that Biden's signature would be adequate to make legislation into law. Though there might be an asterisk by his name, Biden would be the next President in the history books. An "acting President" is a President. He is one who is authorized to preside and act.
Question Authority or be a slave to tyrants....
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry 1775...
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html
There isn't anything lawful about having a Commander-in-Chief who isn't eligible to exercise that command.
Our Founders detested the idea of a standing army. The Militia was expected to ensure that the state was secure. If the Militia takes up arms to oppose a standing army that is commanded by a usurper, doesn't the Militia have an obligation to remove that usurper? How would armed opposition to the Militia by the standing army preserve, support, and defend the Constitution?
To suggest that any order to the army which is not on its face "unlawful" must be obeyed, regardless of who is Commander-in-Chief, is to disregard the oath taken by our soldiers. The oath is to the Constitution, not to the chain-of-command.
I don't see the obligation of the average soldier to judge the authority of his command as being any different than the obligation of a juror to have the final say on the law as well as the facts in a criminal trial.
I never intend to vote for conviction of a person for keeping and bearing arms regardless of the "lawfulness" of a judge's instructions.
I recently recorded the movie "Judgement at Nuremburg" which details the convictions of German judges for their crimes which were, in some cases, completely "legal".
If a court-martial is the expected outcome for a soldier disobeying a "lawful" but unConstitutional order, then that is the course his oath demands.
Our 535 elected representatives, in performance of their constitutional duty, ruled that Obama was President.
Can they usurp the constitution? Well, yes, so much as we and the courts allow them. But until proven otherwise, Obama is the duly sworn President.
Do you really believe that the Court, even if it DID decide that Obama was not constitutionally qualified, and therefore had him removed from office, would rule that his actions while in office have no effect? That would be an impossible ruling. At this point, Obama as presumed to be qualified, and actions are taken based on that presumption, and the presumption has the force of law and the approval of the branch of government (legislative) tasked with ruling on the authority of the President.
Absent a court ruling that Obama is NOT president, I can’t see how anybody would accept that a soldier could independently decide not to obey lawful orders, and insist on being allowed a court date about the issue.
Sure, in this case those arguing the point seem to actually believe Obama is not qualified. But there is no evidence yet of that. Any challenge at this point is at the same place as a left-wing soldier in 2001 refusing to deploy because he thought Bush had not won Florida, and requesting a court case to force Bush to prove he did.
Any soldier, at any time, being allowed to refuse an order pending a court challenge about the president would be an untenable situation.
Not only are your comments informative and well-researched, but you make it easy for non-legal minds to get a grasp, and humor is always welcome in these dark days.
You think someone’s taken over his screen name? Posting history is totally different from the tack he’s on now.
Congress is only dominated by Donks for a few more months, though.
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.
