Battle-scarred judge says Lakin decision ignores Constitution

The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama's birth records could prove "embarrassing" and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.

So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.

"Lt. Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief. He's not only the commander in chief, he dictates the whole war effort, as shown by the recent firing of [Gen. Stanley McChrystal]," Moore said.

It doesn't matter, he said, that orders come from a colonel, or a general or even the Pentagon.

The other presidents didn’t have issues with needing to know where they were born. The other presidents had TWO parents who were US Citizens, and both parents were old enough to transfer citizenship regardless as to where they were born.

In Obama’s case, however, WHERE HE WAS BORN MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN NOT ONLY IF HE IS IS A US CITIZEN AS WELL AS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Those who do not understand why, do not understand the legality surrounding this issue. If Obama was born outside the US, his mother was not old enough to transfer citizenship and his father was not one. Therefore OBAMA IS THE ONE THAT MATTERS.

Yes, I agree that is their take, and I understand their legal position on it. That is something for the SCOTUS to determine. However if we can even get past the “WHERE WAS HE BORN” issue, how can we get to that?

Do you know of anyone in America who was able to get a form of ID without a birth certificate? Try walking into the DMV with a URL of a scanned birth certificate, they will laugh you out of there. Now he most likely has a birth certificate or some other form of ID, no doubt. But you can still get a drivers license from a passport. He had to have had one to go back and forth to Indonesia as a child. So in essence, he doesn’t HAVE to one. And if he was born outside the US, he is not qualified because even if he is NOW a citizen, he would have had to be naturalized to be one.

A lot of people do tend to use the ‘his mom was a US citizen so it doesn’t matter where he was born’ and in THIS case, it’s not so.

I believe that’s why they’re doing everything wrong. They’re not even pretending to follow the laws or Constitution at this point. They’re leaving the door wide open for the whole thing to be overturned by a civilian court - which saves face for them without ever confronting the actual issue.

Every court case involving this issue has had irregularities which give at least the appearance of impropriety. SCOTUS meeting with Obama in private when a case against him was pending. Judge Carter hiring a law clerk from the company doing Obama’s defense, when a case with Obama was before him. These are things so blatant that they throw up huge red flags. The judge in Lakin’s case using an “even if” argument (which has been overturned when used in past cases), and relying on the “political question” argument. It’s nuts. Absolutely nuts.

My hunch is that these judges are doing this to show the world that they are making their decisions under duress.

Just to show how stupid Judge Lind’s argument regarding it not being the military’s place to “remove a President” - let me tell a parable.

There was once a President named Bill Clingon. A woman named Juanita Breadrick told Sean Hammity that she had been raped by Clingon. President Clingon sued her for libel, so Breadrick submitted to the police her torn pantyhose with DNA evidence and asked them to verify whether or not Clingon was the man who had raped her. The judge refused to allow the police to run the tests on the DNA sample because it might embarrass the president and besides, a libel suit is not the proper way to remove a sitting president. The judge said Breadrick would have to come up with a different defense to the libel charges, besides claiming that she told the truth.

There is no honest judge in America who would use this reasoning in a criminal case where somebody will serve hard time because the accused is denied the right to evidence that might embarrass the accuser.

There is no honest judge in America who would claim that finding a man innocent of an Article 92 charge is the same thing as “removing a President”. The case before Lind was Lakin. If she allows justice to be served regarding Lakin, that’s all she has to do. Removing a president is somebody else’s job. Her job is to do justice for Lakin regardless of where the chips may fall.

She knows that. I believe she has been told what she had to rule and so she wrote out her response and had it approved ahead of time - and particularly chose the arguments that anybody with a brain would call BS on, so everybody could know the whole farce is a big crock and she’s just reading the lines the guy with the gun to her head says she has to read.

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.