Posted on 06/06/2010 8:15:29 AM PDT by urtax$@work
Without a legitimate Commander-in-Chief, an Article 32 hearing cannot take place.
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has refused to follow orders until Barack Hussein Obama proves that he is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. If Obama’s eligibility has not been established before the Article 32 hearing scheduled for Lakin on June 11, 2010, then it is illegitimate.
Even the officer delivering the charges to Lt. Col. Lakin did not have the authority to do so if Obama is not constitutionally qualified.
A retired Navy Commander subject to recall filed a .......
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Ping
Hmmm. This could get interesting.
No, the voters must solve this problem. Obama was elected and installed into office through a legitimate political process. He was certified to be eligible by the leaders of his party. If we think that he is not, in fact, eligible to be President, then we need to insist that the several states and the Federal Government implement procedures to ensure that candidates for the Office of President of the U.S. present credentials verifying their eligibility before their names can appear on the ballot.
And don't look to the courts for relief either. They won't touch this one with a 10-foot pole. Will they be ignoring the U.S. Constitution? Of course, but that's nothing new, courts and administrations have been ignoring parts of it for years with the full support and endorsement of the electorate.
Only the people can hold government accountable. At the state level that means passing laws requiring credentials, and electing secretaries of state who will enforce those laws. At the federal level, it means that the political parties must forfeit their authority to certify candidates, that is a clear conflict of interest.
...Driscoll cannot say that it is Congress’s job to determine whether or not Obama is qualified. It is his job. Because if Obama is a usurper and Driscoll pretends otherwise, then he is the one who should be court-martialed, not Lakin....
The article makes a good point about following an illegal CIC.
Everyone is trying to say Obama is the POTUS/CIC because he was elected and sworn in as POTUS.
I cannot think of a job other than dictator where you could be appointed/elected and then later questions arise about deceit getting the position that the issues would not be looked into in detail.
Of course, there is no proof of him being a usurper as all legal documents have been locked up. But on the other hand there is no real primary documentation readily available showing that he is eligible either.
If it was available, it would be flaunted.
Exactly right! If solving a problem involves hurting people and breaking things then it is the military's responsibility. Until it reaches that level, it is government's, and hence our, responsibility.
We already have a civilian defense corpse (sic). I don’t think we are very loyal to him though. That is why he is pushing so hard to disarm us.
...and the recording breaking 12 inches of snow we got in Texas is more proof of global warming.
Recording = record...oops
Well ... well ... well. What have we here???
WRONG --
He was only certified by the Democrat Party and Nancy Pelosi to be eligible for POTUS in Hawaii -- not in the other 49 [or 56] states.
Similar certificates were filed in other states. Some states may have required certification from some other authority, but none required the level of proof that you need for a driver’s license.
But, the point is that when this was done, it was accepted by the political establishment: both parties, state, and federal governments. The electoral college did not challenge his eligibility. The Chief Justice of the U.S. administered the oath of office. The man is President and no court is going to revisit that fact on eligibility grounds.
Here’s what could happen: one or more states passes a law requiring candidates for President of the U.S. to present proof of eligibility. Some candidate, not Obama and not another major candidate will challenge the law, either by refusing to present proof or by presenting proof that is ambiguous, i.e. U.S. born of foreign parents, born abroad of U.S. parents, naturalized citizen. The law will then be challenged with the expectation that both the law and the Constitutional clause will be struck down. That’s the only way that this gets in front of a court and even then, the outcome is far from certain. The present Supreme Court may well have the five votes necessary to strike the Natural Born citizen clause and at least four will jump at the chance to do it.
None of which ever stated that Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the office,
Some states may have required certification from some other authority
No they didn't. The authority was The Affidavit signed and notarized by Pelosi, et al which did not certify that he was qualified for office.
But, the point is that when this was done, it was accepted by the political establishment: both parties, state, and federal governments.
What was accepted??? A document that was supposed to say that he was Constitutionally-qualified but didn't???? If they accepted as valid something that that they claim says what it doesn't say, then they have been victims of fraud or they are perpetrators of fraud. Which is it???
Well ... well ... well. What have we here???
The issue she raised was covered very well in the Investigating Officer’s Memorandum for Lt. Col. Lakin’s Article 32 Hearing.
Lt. Col. Driscoll wrote: “The Government does not charge that the President gave an order directly to LTC Lakin. For the President’s credentials to have any bearing on the charges against LTC Lakin, the Defense proposition must be that military orders issued by superiors to juniors are all ‘invalidated’ during the period the President improperly holds office. This proposition fails to account for the law of lawfulness of orders, which in essence requires that a facially proper order be obeyed so long as it does not require the commission of a criminal act. See, e.g., United States v. New, 55 MJ. 95, 107 -108 (2001) (medic who doubted lawfulness of order to deploy with United Nations uniform accoutrements unable to overcome presumption of lawfulness of superior’s orders to so deploy). Moreover, the Defense proposition fails to account for the de facto officer doctrine, a military variant of apparent authority. The Defense offers no legal support whatever for its position, which I find to be far from ‘axiomatic.’ As far as I have found, the position has no basis in law.”
Dear Uncle Chip,
I’m sure that you have read this:
Not sure that anyone has yet collected all 50 state certifications from the Democrat Party, or all of the individual candidate certifications, it doesn’t matter anyway. As several Secretaries of State have made clear, they don’t really care what the certificates say or maybe not even who signed them, they are not going to check it out. They have their piece of paper and away they go.
You can keep barking up this tree if you want, but the squirrel is not there. He is in the White House and there he will stay until voted out of office.
It is interesting that the DNC chose to submit different language, but I’m not sure that little factoid will even get someone a guest appearance on Coast to Coast. There’s just no there there. That’s nothing new, Chester A. Arthur was accused of being Canadian born before he ever became Vice President and later President. No one cared. And, they won’t now unless someone can show that they have the political muscle to enforce the Natural Born clause, the courts will dish out the popcorn and watch from the sidelines.
This is the Democrat Party way. It doesn't make any difference whether the paper they have is fraudulent or not, as long as it is signed and looks good. What is says is not important. Thanks for confirming it. It's like the Obamabot posts. They post fraud that looks good and then move on.
It is interesting that the DNC chose to submit different language, but I’m not sure that little factoid will even get someone a guest appearance on Coast to Coast.
It's alread there -- in a court case that's on its way to the Supreme Court. It's in your link.
There’s just no there there. That’s nothing new
It was new to you
Chester A. Arthur was accused of being Canadian born before he ever became Vice President and later President. No one cared. And, they won’t now unless someone can show that they have the political muscle to enforce the Natural Born clause, the courts will dish out the popcorn and watch from the sidelines.
Presently 55% of the people doubt that he was born in the US, and as the slime in the White House and the Gulf spreads, more and more will seek out those who can and will clean it up -- and make those who caused and perpetrated it pay up. Judgment day is coming --
Driscoll is not being entirely complete in his explanation. Deployment orders originate from the president of the United States to war zones. The chain-of-command echoes that same order all the way down to the privates in the units that receives those orders. As it is clearly illustrated in this article below:
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.