Posted on 06/04/2010 9:26:46 AM PDT by westcoastwillieg
NonSensiqueer - Slithered out to defend your kenyan/indonesian marxist boy again? Do the dims have you on call to argue for their boy?
I never said I didn’t want the truth to come out, just that this LTC didn’t do us any favors by stepping out of the chain of command.
Reading comprehension, you might want to look into it.
ah, but he now has standing. He is still screwed because SCOTUS will never take his case, but it is heading there. This will have to be reviewed all of the way up the chain of command too. Every one of them will have to sign off on it.
There are at least four, and probably five votes on SCOTUS to say that the natural born requirement for POTUS is moot and will be prepared to cite international/UN laws and pronouncements in support of their opinion.
You are correct that it will never get to that level, though. The courts do not want to touch this and will gladly sacrifice Lakin and anyone else stupid enough to follow this course.
You might want to check yourself before you step into something you regret later.”
Don't let it bother you. That kind of nonsense is standard operating procedure around here. You could be a Congressional Medal of Honor winner who single-handedly saved the country from a horde of Nazi Communist Fascist Muslim Jaywalking Super Terrorists, but if you hold in any way with any established legal system against one of these cases, you're a traitorous O-Bot by definition.
Probably a homosexual, too, since many of them seem to have a weird (telling ?) obsession with that as the epithet of first choice.
Didn't we have a Muslim refuse to go, and his orders were simply changed. Oh well, Diversity is really important
How does the officers’ vow to uphold the US Constitution fit into the scenario that you just described? If somebody stepped in and took over the presidency illegally, would the officers’ vow to uphold the Constitution demand anything other than servile obedience to the illegal “president”?
I would really appreciate a common-sense, boots to the ground, practical answer to that question. So far nobody has given me ANYTHING in response to this question.
I know, but it seems that for every post I see where someone blames all the worlds ills on the Jews, I see one where someone is popping off about nazis like that.
We’ve got enough problems in the world without resorting to mindless name calling among our own ranks. It just gets to be stupid after a while.
This is the very heart of the matter.
The reply that I’ve been given by those who understand this issue the best (those actually IN the military) is that as long as BHO is legally sworn in as POTUS and doesn’t issue any orders that directly violate the Constitution, they will carry out those orders without regards to the political ramifications.
If BHO, or any other President, is ever proven to not be eligible to occupy the Office of the President, then the military would remove him but not until that time.
You have to understand that the military is not going to step outside of their duty to the Constitution and that includes refusing orders from the Commander-in-Chief. If the President is proven to be an usurper, then it’s a whole different ball game, but until that time they will abide by their oaths to obey the President.
Yes, it is. The problem is that his eligibility has not been disproven yet by the other branches so the military can’t act yet.
The officer disobeyed orders from his immediate commander. The Army is absolutely correct applying the court martial. Even when military personnel refuse to carry out an unlawful order, a court martial will occur. It will be up to the court to determine the verdict and related punishment.
The officer made his choice; and, like an officer and a gentleman, will have to bear the consequences. I'm sure he did so knowing full well what would happen, but chose to make a statement through the termination of his career and possible jail time.
It will get there, but I doubt that they will accept the petition. It is a very short chain of appeals in Court-Martials, but SCOTUS and the President are the last two stops. I would love to see a SCOTUS level hearing on this one.
Now if someone doesn't even bother with an election and simply seizes the office of the Presidency, we're pretty much already outside any legal structure and whatever is going to happen will. See any number of countries where the military alternates between being bought off and conducting coups. It's not a good way to go, and not a legitimate comparison to our current situation.
Proven to be a usurper by who?
Who has “standing” to legally prove the POTUS to be a usurper?
I already have the proof that he’s a usurper. What I lack is standing. So tell me - who has standing, if not the people who are REQUIRED to take an oath to DEFEND the US Constitution?
If they refuse to do it, then who’s left? You tell me.
Pelosi, the one who perjured herself to say that Obama is eligible when she never even ASKED to see his legal documentation?
But who has standing to prove that she committed perjury? The same political class that eats each other’s nits all day long?
But your response does not answer my question, which was: Does the officers’ oath to defend the US Constitution demand anything but servile obedience to a person who has illegally taken over the presidency?
Nowhere does the Constitution say that a person being sworn in makes them the president OR eligible to be the president. That’s why we have the provision of Quo Warranto. The Constitution says that no person should be even ELIGIBLE to be president if they are not a natural born US citizen. The whole world could SAY Obama was eligible but if he is not a natural born US citizen he is not even eligible to be president, much less ACTUALLY president. The Constitution doesn’t say that as long as the procedures are followed the result of an ineligible person holding the position is fine. It says the facts of the case determine eligibility. The facts of the case have never been addressed by any legal official in any capacity.
All of the legal intelligencia think that the natural born clause is the worst element of the Constitution. They would love to have the opportunity to toss it out and will come with all sorts of hocus pocus, voodoo legal prose, and secular humanist logic to support their opinion.
In order for the usurper to be proven a usurper, we have to wait for someone to gain "standing" to sue. Larkin has chosen to risk his career and his freedom on the gamble that by doing so he will gain standing to challenge the anti-American socialist who has occupied our White House. Perhaps it's a bad bet on his part, but I don't see a better option that anyone has found to bring that issue up for review. Since that question is fundamental to the charges against Larkin, I'm disappointed that he is not being permitted (yet) to address the question of the community-organizer-in-chief's eligibility for the office of commander-in-chief.
No, just pointing out the errors made by idiots like yourself.
Why would ignoring the Constitutional requirement of an election be any different than ignoring the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship?
If it’s illegal to be president without an election because the Constitution requires an election, then why isn’t it illegal to become president without the natural born citizenship because the Constitution requires it?
But what I hear you saying is that the officer’s oath to the Constitution is not really to the Constitution but to the political protocols in current vogue. As long as the other branches are willing to pee on the Constitution too, the military officers are just supposed to plug their ears and blindly do what they’re told.
Something else that Linda Bentley brought up in an article is that the law requires federal employees to show certain forms of documentation. The law makes no exemptions. If Obama has not provided that documentation then he is not legally able to be employed by the federal government and is not the commander-in-chief.
Who in the military is responsible for verifying that the CIC is actually legally cleared to be a federal employee?
The appropriate legal manner in which to bring this up for review is to challenge Obama’s eligibility for the ballot in 2012, and/or work to pass individual state laws facilitating that between now and then. Everything else is a guaranteed fail from the get go that, quite frankly, just makes it proponents look crazy. Mind you, I think any challenge to Obama’s eligibility in 2012 will fail since I think he was born in Hawaii and will be able to produce documentation that can't be denied under the full faith and credit clause. But if one wants to do something potentially productive, the path I've stated is the only one available. Either that or convinces some prosecuting attorney to open a genuine fraud investigation. But I don't think any of them will with the kind of non-evidence bandied about on these threads.
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.