Posted on 08/02/2010 5:29:53 AM PDT by captjanaway
I don't understand how anyone can hope to have an intellectual discussion with someone who compares an order to deploy, to an order to shoot someone - anyone.
"TLC Lakin is doing his duty."
Lakin raised his concerns with command. He was formally counseled PRIOR to him electing to miss movement that his orders were LAWFUL. He has no defense.
Lakin raised his concerns with command. He was formally counseled PRIOR to him electing to miss movement that his orders were LAWFUL. He has no defense.
361 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 1:47:58 PM by OldDeckHand
The law is all about defintions.
Its a “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” trick.
Linking natural to born with a hyphen and inserting the word American before citizen breaks up the meaning. The effect cannot be defined exactly.
Fukino is a medical docter, not a constitutional lawyer, that makes her use of “natural-born” *especially* dangerous.
As a physician Dr. Fukino is professionally capable of looking at a birth document and discerning if under “place of birth” it lists a place that is located in one of the states of the union and then, in her official appointed capacity as overseer of all Vital Records for the state of Hawaii, she is capable of issuing a professional judgement as to whether that location qualifies a person as a natural born American citizen or not.”
As the primary author of the US Constitution once said:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”—James Madison, Founding Father, Framer of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States.
Oh sir how I envy your naivete...
Huck
The court martial system deals with scores of movement failure orders every year. Lieutenant Colonel Lakin will be handled no differently than any other member of the military, enlisted or officer corps who refuses movement.
What will be perceived of as being political is that Lieutenant Colonel Lakin’s fate is in the hands of a commanding officer who was promoted by President Obama and assigned as commanding officer by Obama however both of those occurences happened before Lakin refused movement. But there’s just no way around the fact that a person who takes orders from Obama and accepted a promotion to Major General by Obama will be ruling on an officer who refused movement because of Obama.
WHO decided his orders were lawful? WHO did the military command consult to decide the orders were lawful? What court did the military command go through to make such a determination? What PROOF did the military command have that Ayatollah Obama is eligible to hand down LEGAL ORDERS? Does the military command determine the legality of the Constitution?
Orders are assumed to be lawful unless they obviously are in conflict with established law.
Given that Obama is accepted as President by the Congress & US Supreme Court, there is no obvious reason why his orders to deploy are illegal.
An officer is not required to prove an order is legal. And a suspicion that they may not be legal is insufficient grounds for disobeying. On several occasions, I told my Commander that if he would put his orders in writing and run them past legal, I’d obey them. On those occasions, the refusal of my Commander to do so left me free to refuse, which I did. And yes, I took some personal loss in career from continuing to be evaluated by someone whose orders I had refused to obey.
So, a man whose father was a Kenyan subject is automatically not eligible to serve as COC of the US military. That means he can OBVIOUSLY not be handing down legal orders.
Enuff said.
I take it you mean a picture of the hand filled form completed when he was born. That's not what Hawaii issues. Their birth certificates are still just as official and just as meaningful, and contain all the data that is necessary to decide the issue. It doesn't have to be the "original".
What hospital was he born in?
“So, a man whose father was a Kenyan subject is automatically not eligible to serve as COC of the US military.”
Incorrect. The courts have long interpreted ‘natural born’ as someone whose citizenship is derived from birth in the country. [Note: there has never been a formal RULING on this, but the discussion in multiple Supreme Court cases has assumed it to be true. To reverse direction would be theoretically possible, but it would overturn 150 years of established cases.]
There is no indication in the Constitution that having a foreign born father prevents one from being a natural born citizen. IAW English Common law, the courts have argued that the phrase is analogous to ‘natural born subject’, which from the 1600s on included the children of aliens born within the realm.
There is no legal justification for claiming a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents.
The name of a hospital is not required to establish if he was born in Hawaii. Since the info is not needed, the courts won’t require a separate form with that information on it.
I always assumed he was born in a manger. :)
Let's see, I practiced military law for the better part of 25 years. What's your experience, other than Tom Clancy novels.
With respect to the legal case against LTC Lakin, your posts clearly indicate you don't possess even a remedial understanding of military law, and the Rules for Court-Martial.
Lakin was formally counseled on 31MAR2010 that his orders were lawful. DA form 4856, which is the form Lakin received, may only be completed by someone in his chain-of-command. Unfortunately, the copies of that form that are publicly available, are redacted, so I'm not sure who actually signed administered the formal counseling.
In that form, Lakin is made aware that...
"This counseling is to inform you that your deployment orders are presumed to be valid and lawful orders issued by competent military authority"
"What court did the military command go through to make such a determination? "
Under the Rules for Court-Martial, the military command need not "go through court to make such a determination". The orders are presumptively lawfull, and as such, the service member disobeys them at their own peril. But, there is nothing facially criminal about this deployment order, or any deployment order. And, it's quite clear that the deployment order was issued by a competent military authority.
"What PROOF did the military command have that Ayatollah Obama is eligible to hand down LEGAL ORDERS?
I have no idea, nor is it in any way germane or material to Lakin's court-martial.
Does the military command determine the legality of the Constitution?
No, that would be a political question that would be nonjusticiable in a military court of law, see" United States v. Huet-Vaughn. 43 M.J. 105, 114-115 (1995).
Well, there you have it. The military does not have the authority to determine whether Obama’s orders are legal or not, and yes it is GERMAINE to the issue. The issue should’ve been referred to the PROPER authority to determine whether LTC Lakin has a legitimate claim of illegal orders.
IT IS NOT UP TO THE MILITARY!
LTC Lakin NEVER REFUSED his orders...he said he would gladly serve on those orders as soon as he was assured that they were LEGAL orders issued by a qualified COC!
Congratulations, I don't believe I have seen anyone contort another's words as fully as you just have.
I'm not quite sure what part of "Barack Obama is the President of the United States" you don't get. He stood for election, he won the popular and electoral vote, his electoral victory was certified by Congress as prescribed by the Constitution and he was sworn into office by the CJ of the United States.
If there is some constitutional legal infirmity with Obama's installation in office, it's not the role of the US military justice system, nor the role of military officers to question that political process. We aren't a banana republic where the military junta overthrows the civilian political process just because it wants to. This is a incredibly straightforward and elementary exercise, and I'm sorry it escapes your.
"The issue should’ve been referred to the PROPER authority to determine whether LTC Lakin has a legitimate claim of illegal orders."
The "proper authority" for Lakin's superior to issue orders, or ANY commissioned officer to issue orders, does not flow from the president and the office he holds, it flows from Congress and the the US statutory law it creates, specifically Title 10 USC. Again, I'm sorry this very elementary legal principle escapes your grasp, but judging from many of the posts here, you're in plentiful company.
I’m sorry you can’t grasp a simple point of eligibility to serve as the COC of the US Military.
But there you have it. You simply can’t grasp that concept. BUT LTC LAKIN CAN! WHO HAS SERVED VERY A LONG TIME IN THE US MILITARY!
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.