Lt. Col. Terry Lakin stripped of his constitutional defense.

[downzero]

The courts have no jurisdiction over this matter. Barack Obama was elected President, period. There is no mechanism in our system whereby the courts can remove an elected president. They don't have the power. A president elected and sworn in can only be removed by impeachment.

There is no other way.

All you're really saying is that it's a political question. And I don't agree. Whether the (now) sitting President of the United States meets the qualification for office is a factual question. Courts answer factual questions all the time.

If you were right, then Bush v. Gore should not have even been heard, much less decided. I don't know how you can hold the position that you do without concluding that this is true.

I think that the political questions doctrine is a sham. I understand why courts don't want to answer these questions, but I don't think their reasoning is sufficient to support the conclusion that courts should not answer those questions.

The American people should not need to impeach a sitting President to get proof that he meets the qualifications for office. Something like a fifth of America doesn't think he's even a citizen of the United States. If nobody is going to come up with demonstrable proof that the President meets the qualifications for office, someone is seriously asleep at the switch.

Even allowing for a moment that your conspiracy theory is correct, he's not disobeying an order from the President. He's disobeying an order from his Batallion Commander, Brigade Commander, Corps Commander, Centcom Commander, the Army Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and a whole bunch of other people who are authorized by Congress to tell him what to do. So I'm sorry but the attempt to tie a birth certificate to willful dereliction of duty holds no water.

The guy was sworn in as President. He is President. He will remain President until one of a) his term expires, b) he dies in office, c) he is impeached. Those are the only three ways it ends. All the other tin foil hat conspiracy talk makes us look like tweakers.

I think what you're really saying is that there's no such thing as an unlawful order. And I think you know that's not true, so I won't even analyze the evidence any further.

I'm not going to respond to the post before that, which was aimed at me, because it was full of factual inaccuracies about the function of our judicial system and process.

I will respond to the bold text, however, because it's quite obviously wrong. The President of the United States is not removed from office by impeachment. He can only be removed upon conviction on charges of impeachment. Two Presidents have been impeached. None have ever been removed from office.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So it's a non-issue because the cowards in charge say it is.

And no one has standing unless those same cowards say they have standing.

Funny how the BS stacks so high.

BHO isn't likely even a citizen, let alone a natural-born one, let alone one free of dual-nationality IF his lineage is what "the official story" claims.

Y'all are funny.

It is a non-issue because it's not relevant to LTC Lakin's deployment orders. DoD, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on down, doesn't get to choose what lawful orders they obey. They are bound by the Constitution and their Oaths to obey any lawful orders given by their Commander In Chief. Period. The current CIC was elected, sworn into office, took the Oath, therefore he is the legal CIC and his legal orders will be obeyed. All that aside, LTC Lakin's orders come from much further down the Chain of Command than the JCS and are legal in any case. LTC Lakin can choose to obey them, contest them, or disobey them. He has chosen the latter option and, worse yet - from a military standpoint - has chosen to couch his disobedience in political terms. His Court Martial is deserved and the best he can hope for is release from Active Duty; he will not be acquitted, nor should he be.

 

[dross]

All you're really saying is that it's a political question. And I don't agree. Whether the (now) sitting President of the United States meets the qualification for office is a factual question. Courts answer factual questions all the time.

If you were right, then Bush v. Gore should not have even been heard, much less decided. I don't know how you can hold the position that you do without concluding that this is true.

I think that the political questions doctrine is a sham. I understand why courts don't want to answer these questions, but I don't think their reasoning is sufficient to support the conclusion that courts should not answer those questions.

The American people should not need to impeach a sitting President to get proof that he meets the qualifications for office. Something like a fifth of America doesn't think he's even a citizen of the United States. If nobody is going to come up with demonstrable proof that the President meets the qualifications for office, someone is seriously asleep at the switch.
.

Neither Bush nor Gore had been elected President, and the courts didn't rule on the question of their presidency, they ruled on Florida election law. Not the same issue.

I haven't thought about it, but I suppose it's possible that the courts could have become involved before Barack Obama became President.

Let's look at your scenario involving the courts. Someone brings suit that Obama was never qualified to be President. Let's say some court hears the lawsuit and rules that Obama was never qualified to be President. Fine.

How then is he removed from office? The Constitution has no annulment clause. He was sworn in. He IS the President. There is only one way to remove a President, and that is throug impeachment proceedings.

Please explain the mechanism under which he could be removed without impeachment. I'll stipulate that the courts have ruled he was never eligible.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
How then is he removed from office? The Constitution has no annulment clause. He was sworn in. He IS the President. There is only one way to remove a President, and that is throug impeachment proceedings.

Please explain the mechanism under which he could be removed without impeachment. I'll stipulate that the courts have ruled he was never eligible.

He doesn't need impeached. Being ineligible, he never held office. Being sworn in simply doesn't change that.

 

[dross]

There are lawful orders and unlawful orders. It is a soldier's DUTY to disobey an unlawful order.

A soldier takes an oath to obey the President of the United States AND "the officers appointed over me."

His logic was faulty from the beginning.

My arguments against this man's position:

1. BO is the President, even if he was ineligible when elected.
2. Even if I followed the guy's logic that he is not actually the President, he was still ordered to deploy by the officers appointed over him, who get their authority from Congress, not from the President.
3. It's not an unlawful order if the person giving it doesn't have the power to give it. It's just not an order at all. But his deployment orders weren't signed by the President, they were signed by someone appointed over this soldier.

This guy may be making a great point, but he chose the wrong vehicle to express it.

 

[downzero]

Please explain the mechanism under which he could be removed without impeachment. I'll stipulate that the courts have ruled he was never eligible.

I think it's very possible that a person who is/was not qualified to hold office, if it could be demonstrated, could be removed from office by the courts and not claim executive immunity.

Someone who does not meet the qualifications in the Constitution to be President of the United States is not the President and never has been, once that has been determined to be fact. Therefore, the judiciary wouldn't be removing a sitting President--they'd be removing someone from office who should have never been able to hold it in the first place.

Your political problems are among the reasons why people are very uncomfortable with the idea. I'm not. If it can be shown, in fact, that he's not a US Citizen or not a Natural Born citizen, he is not the President and never should have even been allowed to take the oath. And if we've done a wrong by electing him, that isn't a wrong that should be without a legal remedy.

 

[dross]

He doesn't need impeached. Being ineligible, he never held office. Being sworn in simply doesn't change that.

I can find nothing in the Constitution that supports this opinion.

How would he be removed if your theory were correct? The courts would order it? Who would enforce the order? Where do the courts get the power to declare him ineligible? Wouldn't there have to be a trial to determine eligibility? He says he was born in Hawaii. Other say different. Who decides? Someone must prove his ineligibility through some mechanism. Only after it is proven can it be said that he was never the President (though I'm sure the courts would rule that he was the President, otherwise the can of snakes would be too nightmarish.)

So he is the President until proven otherwise, since there's no mechanism built into Constitution or election law where the burden of proof is placed on the candidate. So now the only way to remove a sitting President is through impeachment.

According to your theory, he's not the President now. But that hasn't been proven, and the burden of proof isn't on him. So he is the President, and if he is the President, only an impeachment trial can make him not the President. Until that happens, he can't become the President who was never the President.

Do you see?

 

[dross]

I think it's very possible that a person who is/was not qualified to hold office, if it could be demonstrated, could be removed from office by the courts and not claim executive immunity.

Someone who does not meet the qualifications in the Constitution to be President of the United States is not the President and never has been, once that has been determined to be fact. Therefore, the judiciary wouldn't be removing a sitting President--they'd be removing someone from office who should have never been able to hold it in the first place.

Your political problems are among the reasons why people are very uncomfortable with the idea. I'm not. If it can be shown, in fact, that he's not a US Citizen or not a Natural Born citizen, he is not the President and never should have even been allowed to take the oath. And if we've done a wrong by electing him, that isn't a wrong that should be without a legal remedy.

Back up your theory with something in the Constitution. Back it up with something in the law even, though this is clearly a Constitutional issue.

 

[Joe Williams]

The Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen is clear, and there is no way around it.

If it is proven that he is not a natural born citizen, it is impossible to impeach him, and unnecessary, as he is not President. Not being a natural born citizen, he is not President, and never was.

 

[dross]

The Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen is clear, and there is no way around it.

If it is proven that he is not a natural born citizen, it is impossible to impeach him, and unnecessary, as he is not President. Not being a natural born citizen, he is not President, and never was.

How would you prove it? What court has jurisdiction to rule on a President's eligibility to hold office? The only court I can find with the power to remove a President is the Senate.

It's a catch 22. If it is proven that he is not eligible, then he can't be the President. But he is the President until it's proven that he was never eligible. Since it hasn't been proven, he is the President, and the only court that can make him not the President is the Senate.

 

[downzero]

How would you prove it? What court has jurisdiction to rule on a President's eligibility to hold office? The only court I can find with the power to remove a President is the Senate.

It's a catch 22. If it is proven that he is not eligible, then he can't be the President. But he is the President until it's proven that he was never eligible. Since it hasn't been proven, he is the President, and the only court that can make him not the President is the Senate.

The federal courts would have jurisdiction. They just refuse to hear the case under the political questions doctrine. I don't think any honest person believes that they couldn't analyze the evidence. The disagreement would be on the remedy, not the court's ability to analyze the evidence.

Do you think the President could be subpoenaed?

 

[Joe Williams]

How would you prove it? What court has jurisdiction to rule on a President's eligibility to hold office? The only court I can find with the power to remove a President is the Senate.

It's a catch 22. If it is proven that he is not eligible, then he can't be the President. But he is the President until it's proven that he was never eligible. Since it hasn't been proven, he is the President, and the only court that can make him not the President is the Senate.

We could sue him for defrauding us. If he's not a natural born citizen, he's knowingly taken money and benefits to which he's not entitled.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

We could sue him for defrauding us. If he's not a natural born citizen, he's knowingly taken money and benefits to which he's not entitled.

We could get the Congress to pass a law requiring future Presidential candidates to prove they are "natural born citizens" of the US, the same way I have to provide my birth certificate to prove I'm a citizen when I apply for any other government job.

 

[downzero]

We could get the Congress to pass a law requiring future Presidential candidates to prove they are "natural born citizens" of the US, the same way I have to provide my birth certificate to prove I'm a citizen when I apply for any other government job.

States could even require it for anyone to be put on the ballot.

 

[dross]

We could sue him for defrauding us. If he's not a natural born citizen, he's knowingly taken money and benefits to which he's not entitled.

This gets interesting. He can't be sued for something he's done while President, and I'm not sure if a suit can be started while President - I can't remember if the Paula Jones started before he was elected. If he can be sued, and the court was to rule that the defrauding ocurre BEFORE he was made President, then maybe. I'd be interested in hearing from Eddie and CarmelHP on this one.

So, let's say we sue him and the suit goes forward. I don't think there's enough evidence that I've seen that would override his birth certificate. Yes, it's a copy, but that's what I have as well, and Hawaii, which is the controlling authority has said what he has presented is legal and valid.

Now, let's say we win the suit. I don't see how that changes anything. Just like OJ is still not guilty of Ron Goldman's murder, even though a civil jury said that he was responsible by a preponderance of evidence.

No magic would happen because a court found that he was not a citizen, since the only court that has jurisdiction over a President is the Senate. But he was never the President because he was never eligible, you say. I don't think a court finding would make that the law of the land.

It all comes back to the only way to remove a President is through impeachment. If that's the only court that can remove him, then I think it's the only court to say he should never have been President.

 

[dross]

We could get the Congress to pass a law requiring future Presidential candidates to prove they are "natural born citizens" of the US, the same way I have to provide my birth certificate to prove I'm a citizen when I apply for any other government job.

States could even require it for anyone to be put on the ballot.

I think these are great ideas, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens someday.

 

[Joe Williams]

I think these are great ideas, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens someday.

It's already happened, or is happening, in at least a couple states.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So maybe this Pres will end up being good for something after all...