Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army Judge Axes Obama Birth Record Request
KITV Honolulu ^ | 09/03/2010

Posted on 09/07/2010 3:55:45 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta

A military judge in Maryland has ruled that President Barack Obama's birth certificate is irrelevant in the case of an Army doctor charged with disobeying deployment orders because he doubts Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

(Excerpt) Read more at kitv.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: army4obama; army4soa; army4treason; armyinlockstep; armykangaroocourt; armyvsamerica; armyvsconstitution; armyvsthelaw; armyvsthepeople; armyvsthetruth; birthcertificate; canttrustarmy; certifigate; kangaroocourt; naturalborncitizen; nobc; nobirthcertificate; nointegrity; notruth; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: FreeAtlanta
The sole purpose of ruling that the question of Obama's citzenship status is irrelevant is to avoid giving the defense the power to subpoena Obama. That makes it STUNNINGLY obvious that Obama lacks the documentation proving his eligibility.

Obama clearly does not meet the Constutitional requirement to be a Natural Born Citizen—because his father was not a US citizen. By the time Obama leaves office, he will be so unpopular that the elite will find it impossible to prevent disclosure of the fact that he's not even a citizen of any sort. That revelation will be far more damaging, because it requires far less sophistication to understand it.

21 posted on 09/07/2010 4:25:45 PM PDT by sourcery (United We Stand, Divided We Fall: You have to give in order to get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

In the meantime treason is much more important to these people, and must go on.


22 posted on 09/07/2010 4:44:54 PM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
ie "He has no reasonable expectation that the CiC be legitimate." /s

None of us do apparently.

23 posted on 09/07/2010 4:47:30 PM PDT by TigersEye (Greenhouse Theory is false. Totally debunked. "GH gases" is a non-sequitur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waco

I predict massive trials for Treason, with millions convicted and executed.


24 posted on 09/07/2010 4:59:25 PM PDT by sourcery (United We Stand, Divided We Fall: You have to give in order to get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

What if he is found not guilty? (I would vote not guilty.) Does that mean nobody has to obey orders?


25 posted on 09/07/2010 5:03:19 PM PDT by satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

“Obama clearly does not meet the Constutitional requirement to be a Natural Born Citizen...”

I think you have a point, however, Courts seem to take the position that the Congress determined that he is qualified.

If we disagree with Congress’ determination that he was eligible, Congress has to make that determiantion as well.


26 posted on 09/07/2010 5:03:47 PM PDT by John Galt's cousin (Principled Conservatism NOW! * * * * * * * * * * Repeal the 17th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
The smoking gun is the feeble effort to 'bamboozle' America with the phony birth document (Certification of Live Birth) he put up on his web site. That should have brought an FBI visit for forging a birth certificate.

The Certification of Live Birth form is not definitive.

He and his administration think Americans are idiots. They know that you are waiting for the piss-stream media to tell the truth but it ain't ever going to happen.

WAKE UP AMERICA



Where's the original Certificate of Live Birth, Mr. President?


27 posted on 09/07/2010 5:07:57 PM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The judge sure is afraid what the birth certificate might reveal. There is so much we do not know about our president. He could easily put a stop to the arguments, but he will not do it. Why? Because he would lose?

Even some liberals are getting nervous. One of them said that the article "The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues" by Steve Baldwin caused him to have second thoughts.

28 posted on 09/07/2010 5:08:09 PM PDT by apocalypto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: satan
"What if he is found not guilty? (I would vote not guilty.)

Remember, in a court-martial, it only takes two thirds to convict, not a unanimous decision like in the civilian world. You have a better chance of being crowned king or queen of England, than Lakin has at trial.

Does that mean nobody has to obey orders?"

Whatever "it" means, "it" is the reason why at least three 0-6's are going to vote to convict. You see, Lakin will be tried by a jury of his peers, that means 0-6 or above - the very people that have the most invested in order and discipline. If Lakin doesn't have to obey the orders of his command, then their own subordinates don't have to obey their orders. Field and general grade office don't often invite chaos into the ranks. It's for this reason that I think there's a reasonable chance Lakin will really get punished at sentencing. I don't think he'll get more than 6-months confinement, but that possibility does exist.

It's my personal experience that jury panes - especially field-grade jury panels are VERY tough on the accused when one of the charges is Failure to Obey.

29 posted on 09/07/2010 5:19:25 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

The judge should be thrown off the bench for making a ruling like that. No case would go to trial if we couldn’t embarrass somebody. Is this doctor going to go to prison just because the judges doesn’t want to embarrass Obama? Millions of Americans are already embarrassed by having this joke as their president.


30 posted on 09/07/2010 5:19:41 PM PDT by peeps36 (Obama, The Worst President In American History, By Far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
Then drop the charges and give him an honorable discharge.

Keeping the charges and a couple of years in Leavenworth are more likely.

31 posted on 09/07/2010 5:20:24 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
...nor did she say he didn’t have standing.

"Standing" is a term used in civil court and applies to a person's right to sue. Lakin is charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ and is facing several years in Leavenworth when convicted. The last thing he needs to worry about is 'standing'.

She just said he should pick another defense because his request could prove embarassing to the Won.

So have you actually read the decision?

32 posted on 09/07/2010 5:25:29 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
"She didn’t say it was an invalid defense and provide reasoning; nor did she say he didn’t have standing. She just said he should pick another defense because his request could prove embarassing to the Won. Totally banana republic."

She did say it's an invalid defense. That's the point.

33 posted on 09/07/2010 5:32:07 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
"The Constitution is irrelevant?"

No it isn't. And that's the problem birthers have. All these cases want courts to set aside the constitutional provisions governing presidential election and just give them what they want. Birthers are attacking the constitution.

34 posted on 09/07/2010 5:34:48 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: John Galt's cousin

Congress has to make that determiantion as well.

So does that mean if the House and Senate are won by the Republicans in November that they could, with a majority, demand a copy of the BC or find him ineligible due to his dual citizenship?


35 posted on 09/07/2010 5:38:54 PM PDT by Bluebeard16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bluebeard16
"So does that mean if the House and Senate are won by the Republicans in November that they could, with a majority, demand a copy of the BC or find him ineligible due to his dual citizenship?"

They could hold hearings, and their power to subpoena is VERY generous and broad. So yes, they could get their hands on his birth records, probably.

But, the principle of judicial review continues to lay with - well - the Judiciary. It's the provenance of the Judiciary to interpret and define Constitutional terms, not the Congress. So, if Natural Born is going to be interpreted to mean a specific "thing", it will be the judiciary that will be the final arbiter of that interpretation.

36 posted on 09/07/2010 5:46:31 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: John Galt's cousin

The whole point of having courts is to provide an inpedendent review of the legality and propriety of the actions of the other two branches of government. If they refuse to their job, then they are nullifying the purpose and utility of the separation of powers.

Deliberately sabotaging the Constitution and the fundamental principles of operation of the government it establishes is Treason.


37 posted on 09/07/2010 6:36:55 PM PDT by sourcery (United We Stand, Divided We Fall: You have to give in order to get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
"The whole point of having courts is to provide an inpedendent review of the legality and propriety of the actions of the other two branches of government. If they refuse to their job, then they are nullifying the purpose and utility of the separation of powers."

The Court reviews what it has provenance to review. The political question doctrine - as defined by Felix Frankfurter - has been a long-held principle established in 1849.

There were many cases that turned on this very principle during Vietnam, and more during the first Gulf War and then later in these two latest conflicts where service members refused orders because they believed the actions of the President to be "unconstitutional". The Court - rightly - said, "no sale", and did not allow the defense when it was asserted for violating Article 92, and other Articles

It's not the prerogative of the military to question the political process. Electing and installing a President is as much a political process, as it is a legal process, nor is it the Constitutional prerogative of the military to inspect the credentials of the President. That is a job that is laid expressly at the feet of the Electoral College and the Congress,not the military.

Lind ruled the only way she could. She'll easily be affirmed on appeal.

38 posted on 09/07/2010 7:13:29 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

This is my hope. I just wonder what it will take to reveal all this.


39 posted on 09/07/2010 7:19:59 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

>> How about a few years in Leavenworth breaking rocks?

Who, Lakin or the CIC who refuses to show a $12 document?


40 posted on 09/07/2010 7:24:00 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson