Posted on 08/07/2010 8:22:35 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Much has been said the orders sending Ltc Lakin to Afganistan were not from President Obama but from his military commander.
All military orders are from the President. In the book titled Military Law and Precedents by Colonel William Winthrop on page and 20 it states the following:
"Military Commanders giving orders represent the Commander-in-Chief, the President."
I know, I was just commenting on all y’all’s comments is all.
Nobody mentioned it so figured I might as well. Doesn’t stop me from beaucoup wishful thinking though. Anything that would bring this critter down, I am for. He and his ilk and all the clinton appointed generals are destroying our military and I am damn tired of seeing us used as some frakking social experiment.
When they started teaching the five pillars of islam at West Point, that was it for me.
This way was funnier.
If we could edit our posts, think of all the inadvertent humor we’d miss.
I haven’t said that Obama is not president. I’ve said that he is not allowed by the 20th Amendment to exercise the Presidential powers.
Taking the oath of office is one of the 2 Constitutional requirements for someone - whether they are the President already or not - to be able to exercise the presidential powers. The other requirement is that they must “qualify” by Jan 20th. If Obama took the oath of office he meets ONE of the two requirements. He can’t have the presidential powers until he meets BOTH requirements.
So saying that he took the oath of office is neither here nor there to the question of whether he ever “qualified” - the other Constitutional prerequisite for exercising the Presidential powers.
Obama never “qualified”. The 20th Amendment says that the VP elect (Joe Biden) is to “act as President”.
As long as somebody besides Joe Biden is acting as President, the 20th Amendment is being violated, since Obama failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009.
A president-elect can’t take the Oath of Office if he or she didn’t qualify and if he or she took the Oath of Office, they qualified.
A president-elect qualifies by being alive and not infirmed on Inauguration Day, you qualify by winning a majority of the electoral college votes and you qualify by having your electoral votes certified by the outgoing Vice President in his role as President of the Senate before a joint session of Congress with no objections from any two members of Congress (one Senator and one Representatives with the objections made in writing). If there are objections to certifying the Electoral College vote, you can qualify by having both Houses of Congress hear those objections and resolve them on a vote of each of the 50 states with each state congressional delegation having one vote.
The only thing that Butterdezillion is talking about is the fact that some of Obama’s detractors do not believe that he qualified for the office of president. But no official body has made such a ruling and no official body (Congress, the Judiciary) has even seriously considered such a finding.
The Courts have consistently found challenges to Obama’s qualifications to be “frivolous.”
The certification process needs to be determined by a court of law if it is legal according to the Constitution.
Ample documentation has been posted on numerous threads Obama is not a natural born citizen regardless of his birth location.
In my humble opinion Congress should be tried for misprision of treason.
They’ve given up on the system.
Same reason I don’t bother to ask for what Hawaii law tells me I have a right to. I’ve already learned that the system is corrupt to the core.
It’s a bad sign. Like when hypothermia sets in and you go numb and fall asleep rather than fighting.
Wow.
That’s infuriating.
It does make me wonder even more strongly whether Soros and the Saudis threatened the entire US government with another run on the bank if they resisted Obama’s coup.
That’s 2 SCOTUS justices who have made cryptic comments suggesting that they know.
lol....
Jamese, you continually ignore the points I’ve already made.
Nowhere does the Constitution or the 20th Amendment give Congress the job of determining Presidential eligibility. If the Constitution specifically gave that duty to another branch of government, it would be a “political question”. Otherwise, all cases arising out of the Constitution or laws are to be decided by the judiciary. This is clearly one of those issues, unless you can show me anywhere that the job is specifically given to somebody else in the Constitution.
See, one of the differences between thee and me is that I’ve read the Constitution and consider it to be the highest law of the land. Let me give you 4 references from the Constitution which support the idea that not every President can have the presidential powers or “act as President”.
Article II, Sec 1: “In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”
Article II, Sec 1: “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: - “I do solemnly swear (or affirm)( that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Amendment XII: “And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.” (Note: this clarifies that the disability is a constitutional disability - that is, that the Constitution itself disables a standing President from acting as President.)
Amendment XX, Section 1 and Section 3: “The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January... and the terms of their successors shall then begin”....... “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified...”
You have never addressed the fact that in Constitutional terms there is no recognition of a popular vote. For someone to be the President elect they had to have already gone through the process that Congress is involved in - counting the electoral votes and resolving issues if the electoral vote is split and thus results in no majority winner. The 20th Amendment lists separately the scenarios that the Pres elect has died or hasn’t been chosen. The part about the Pres elect failing to qualify is a different scenario.
A person can “fail to qualify” even after that process is all done. And a Pres elect can “fail to qualify” even though the VP elect qualifies. “Qualifying” is clearly something not related to the process but related to the personal circumstances of the individuals involved.
The only Constitutional disqualifiers from holding OFFICE (as opposed to disqualifiers from the execution of that office) is what is in Article II immediately preceding the first reference I cited in this post: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
How can Obama ever have been found to be eligible to the office of President if his age has never even been legally determined? It hasn’t. He STILL hasn’t “qualified”. Even if the whole world signed oaths saying that he qualified, Hawaii law, HRS 338-17, says that the birth certificate Hawaii’s got for Obama doesn’t mean anything legally if somebody just looks at it. It has to be presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and legally determined as probative before it means anything legally. So there is nobody in this world who can say what Obama’s LEGAL birth facts are, because they have never been determined.
What does QED mean? (I’m sort of a noob. lol)
I should actually correct that last line. There is almost certainly somebody in the WORLD who can say what Obama’s LEGAL birth facts are, but it would have to be based on the valid birth certificate he’s been using until he completed his Hawaii BC in 2006. That birth certificate is more than likely one from Kenya.
So somebody in the world could say what Obama’s legal birth facts are - but it still wouldn’t “qualify” Obama, which is why he refuses to present either his valid Kenyan BC or his legally-deficient Hawaii BC as evidence to anybody.
The 20th Amendment says that if he fails to “qualify” - presumably meaning to legally meet the qualifications to be eligible to the office of President, since the electoral requirement had to have already been met for him to be the President elect - the Vice President elect must “act as President” until a President qualifies.
Thanks. QED. lol
I’m having some issues with trying to access information because I’m on my daughter’s computer since my own has a virus and has to have the hard drive wiped and everything reinstalled. My daughter’s computer filters out websites and allows hardly anything. If I disable the filter I get all kinds of warnings about sites.
Standard garbage we all deal with when we are working to expose Obama. Nobody else in my family has ever been hit with a virus but I’ve probably had about a half-dozen of them in the last 2 years, in spite of constant virus protection on my computer.
Anyway, just a partial explanation (that’s the new jargon for “excuse” lol) as to my laziness in looking up the definition. (tongue in cheek. Wikipedia gave the answer nicely and wasn’t blocked by my computer. Thanks for the response) =)
This article reports on how the meeting with the National Security Council went about. Says Obama issued a Presidential order in March regarding Afghanistan. But this describes how Obama arrived at the presidential order which resulted in the COMPLAN that eventually ordered Lakin to deploy.
So it started with a presidential order from Obama, with the approval of the Joint Chief of Staff (Adm Mike Mullen) and Petraeus. It did not have the approval of Joe Biden, the only person authorized by the US Constitution to “act as President”.
Lakin’s deployment order was directly caused by Obama acting as President rather than the only one the Constitution authorized to “act as President”.
There is NO WAY anybody can claim that Obama is irrelevant to this issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1
The HDOH has already indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.
One of the ways they revealed that was by making a statutory admission that Obama’s genuine BC is amended - a fact that by law has to be noted on any genuine COLB but is not noted on the Factcheck COLB.
That revelation also makes clear that the best Hawaii has for Obama still has no legal value at all until it is determined to be probative by a judicial or administrative person or body when the BC is actually presented to them as evidence.
Until that happens there is zero legal documentation for Obama from Hawaii at all.
The forgery was an attempt to hide the fact that the genuine BC has no legal value.
Obama literally has no legal birth facts. At least not from Hawaii. He has legal birth facts he used before 2006 (when he amended his Hawaii BC) - probably a Kenyan BC. But his claims of a Hawaii birth rely on the Hawaii BC, and those claims have only the legal status of hearsay. Hawaii law specifically states that the probative value of an amended BC cannot be determined without a judicial or administrative person or body being presented the BC as evidence. Obama made sure that could never happen.
The 20th Amendment gives the President elect until Jan 20th to “qualify”. If he fails to do it by then, the Vice President elect is to “act as President” until a President qualifies.
Obama has never qualified. He doesn’t even have any legally-established birth facts.
guarantee the plaintiff will drive the battle in that direction. It boils down to the question ... “is a certificate of live birth evidence, within a reasonable doubt, that the bearer is a natural born citizen?” In Lakin’s eyes, as an officer in the U.S. Military, it is not. And that is a widely held opinion within the citizenry as well. Will his team be able to show it is not? I hope so. I’d rather that, than to send a good man to serve hard labor. Time will tell.
Does this make sense to you, butterdezillion?
I’m having trouble keeping up with all of these details.
***
nc1 says:
Monday, August 9, 2010 at 3:53 AM
In the AP article Okubo offered to sell the index data for year 1961 to anyone willing to pay $98.
She admitted that birth index data contains the year of birth.
It contradicts the earlier response from DoH.
Why did they provide index data without specifying Obama’s year of birth in their original response?
What other part(s) of birth index data have they refused to release to public?
Why do they hide the registration number?
Found at ThePostEmail
Jamese, you continually ignore the points I’ve already made.
Nowhere does the Constitution or the 20th Amendment give Congress the job of determining Presidential eligibility. If the Constitution specifically gave that duty to another branch of government, it would be a “political question”. Otherwise, all cases arising out of the Constitution or laws are to be decided by the judiciary. This is clearly one of those issues, unless you can show me anywhere that the job is specifically given to somebody else in the Constitution.
See, one of the differences between thee and me is that I’ve read the Constitution and consider it to be the highest law of the land. Let me give you 4 references from the Constitution which support the idea that not every President can have the presidential powers or “act as President”.
Article II, Sec 1: “In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”
Article II, Sec 1: “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: - “I do solemnly swear (or affirm)( that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Amendment XII: “And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.” (Note: this clarifies that the disability is a constitutional disability - that is, that the Constitution itself disables a standing President from acting as President.)
Amendment XX, Section 1 and Section 3: “The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January... and the terms of their successors shall then begin”....... “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified...”
You have never addressed the fact that in Constitutional terms there is no recognition of a popular vote. For someone to be the President elect they had to have already gone through the process that Congress is involved in - counting the electoral votes and resolving issues if the electoral vote is split and thus results in no majority winner. The 20th Amendment lists separately the scenarios that the Pres elect has died or hasn’t been chosen. The part about the Pres elect failing to qualify is a different scenario.
A person can “fail to qualify” even after that process is all done. And a Pres elect can “fail to qualify” even though the VP elect qualifies. “Qualifying” is clearly something not related to the process but related to the personal circumstances of the individuals involved.
The only Constitutional disqualifiers from holding OFFICE (as opposed to disqualifiers from the execution of that office) is what is in Article II immediately preceding the first reference I cited in this post: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
How can Obama ever have been found to be eligible to the office of President if his age has never even been legally determined? It hasn’t. He STILL hasn’t “qualified”. Even if the whole world signed oaths saying that he qualified, Hawaii law, HRS 338-17, says that the birth certificate Hawaii’s got for Obama doesn’t mean anything legally if somebody just looks at it. It has to be presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and legally determined as probative before it means anything legally. So there is nobody in this world who can say what Obama’s LEGAL birth facts are, because they have never been determined.
Has any official body, any court of law or any legislative body RULED that Obama did not qualify for the presidency under any Article of or Amendment to the Constitution?
Has any member of the loyal opposition to Obama called for Congressional hearings on Obama’s ineligibility? At the end of every legislative day in the House of Representatives, each political party is alotted time to make speeches on any issue of concern to any member or issues of concern to that poltical party. Has any member of Congress made a speech to highlight the issue of Obama’s lack of qualifying for the presidency?
If the answer is yes: which official body, court or legislative body was it? You see Butterdezillion, the provisions of the Constitution must be enforced in the real world, not via posts on the internet.
If the answer is no: Isn’t it a fact that Barack Hussein Obama II has signed hundreds of pieces of legislation into law, appointed hundreds of people to governmental positions, ordered military personnel into harm’s way, ordered the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, carries the nuclear football with the launch codes to every nuclear missile in the US arsenal, and has entered into ratified treaties with foreign governments and that he continues to perform all of the above functions on a daily basis?
Whose job is it to inform President Obama that he did not qualify for the presidency before January 20, 2009 and that he cannot exercise the powers of the presidency and that Vice President Biden is the Acting President?
Wouldn’t it make sense to inform the candidate who received the most popular votes, the person who won a majority of the Electoral College votes, or the President-Elect that he did not qualify BEFORE Inauguration Day and the administering of the Oath of Office? Why didn’t that happen between November 4, 2008 and January 19, 2009?
If you can’t answer these questions then your “reading” of the Constitution is akin to reading “Little Red Riding Hood.”
Nobody has ruled on it because they all say nobody has standing to raise the question.
What makes you believe that Congress in any way enters the question of whether Obama “qualified”? Show me the text you rely on to say that the legislative branch has any power or jurisdiction on this issue.
It is the judiciary’s job to inform the Pres elect that he did not “qualify” by Jan 20th. Anything not designated to somebody else in the Constitution is left to the judiciary, who is to settle all cases arising from the Constitution. They refused to do their jobs, saying that nobody had “standing”.
As to why they refused to do their jobs... I’d REALLY like to know that. But alas, nobody has to answer questions from peons like We the People. What do you think this is - government by the people and for the people? Get real.
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.