Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's a f-in REMF! The only thing that he would be putting on the line would be a few fingers in the event of an errant scalpel cut!
Which brings to mind, I find it interesting that even during the Iraq protest, the folks who always seem to want to make a political point, be they Democrats or Republicans are never the guys or gals, looking to stand on the frontlines.
So true. Those guys don't even know how to salute...the closest he comes to harm's way is a paper cut filling out his froms in triplicate. Rest assured his butt stays in the Green Zone way out of harm's way.
Send his rear to Leavenworth to give him time to philosophize about the lawfulness of the orders given to him.
Lakin should have gotten competent legal advice before refusing orders to deploy, instead of trusting Birther lawyers. His belief that Obama is not his legitimate Commander In Chief doesn't matter, even if (for the sake of argument ) he's correct. There's a little thingie called the de facto officer doctrine that shoots down his whole defense. Maybe he should go with a defense of stress-inducedmental illness.
The Supremes have spoken:
Quote:
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.
"Not belonging to the judicial branch of the Government, it follows courts-martials must pertain to the executive department; and they are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by Congress for the President as Commander-in-Chief, to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilize under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives."
Guess it has to be determined if Obama has the authority to order a court martial.
"Not belonging to the judicial branch of the Government, it follows courts-martials must pertain to the executive department; and they are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by Congress for the President as Commander-in-Chief, to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilize under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives."
Guess it has to be determined if Obama has the authority to order a court martial.
"Not belonging to the judicial branch of the Government, it follows courts-martials must pertain to the executive department; and they are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by Congress for the President as Commander-in-Chief, to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilize under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives."
Guess it has to be determined if Obama has the authority to order a court martial.
I'll bet you the Presidents name isn't mentioned in the Charges. The Officer issuing the Orders is the one who's orders are being disobeyed.
Please defend your assertion that anyone who questions the citizenship of Barack Obama is dumb. If this man, who holds his position based on his meeting the constitutional requirements to do so, can't readily produce uncontroversial evidence of citizenship, why should he retain his position? Any native-born American who had to prove his or her citizenship status could, with very little effort, produce a valid and irrefutable document that confirmed a birth on American soil. Why is it that the President of the United States is to be excused from having to do this very same thing? The subject of this thread had to produce his birth certifcate in order to be processed for deployment; why is Obama not held to the same minimal standard? Does anyone really imagine/beleive that if Barack Obama had a notarized copy of his American birth certificate, tucked away in the family safety deposit box, that he would just simply produce it and make all this controversy disappear. It is the very fact of his not producing it that reinforces the belief that such a document does not exist.
An analogy:
Teacher to student: "Did you do the homework assignment?"
Student: "Yes I did."
Teacher: "Please turn it in now."
Student: "I did it but I am not going to show it to you.
Teacher: "Excuse me, let me have it right now."
Student: "I will show you a note from my parents that states that I did it."
Teacher: "That won't do, I need to see the actual assignment."
Student: "You'll just have to take my word for the fact that I did it."
Please defend your assertion that anyone who questions the citizenship of Barack Obama is dumb. If this man, who holds his position based on his meeting the constitutional requirements to do so, can't readily produce uncontroversial evidence of citizenship, why should he retain his position? Any native-born American who had to prove his or her citizenship status could, with very little effort, produce a valid and irrefutable document that confirmed a birth on American soil. Why is it that the President of the United States is to be excused from having to do this very same thing? The subject of this thread had to produce his birth certifcate in order to be processed for deployment; why is Obama not held to the same minimal standard? Does anyone really imagine/beleive that if Barack Obama had a notarized copy of his American birth certificate, tucked away in the family safety deposit box, that he would just simply produce it and make all this controversy disappear. It is the very fact of his not producing it that reinforces the belief that such a document does not exist.
An analogy:
Teacher to student: "Did you do the homework assignment?"
Student: "Yes I did."
Teacher: "Please turn it in now."
Student: "I did it but I am not going to show it to you.
Teacher: "Excuse me, let me have it right now."
Student: "I will show you a note from my parents that states that I did it."
Teacher: "That won't do, I need to see the actual assignment."
Student: "You'll just have to take me word for the fact that I did it."
And so on and so on and so on... Get the idea?
I get it:
General: Here are your Orders to Afghanistan, I signed them.
Colonel: But Obama's Birth Certificate
General: I issued these Orders
Colonel: But Obama
General: Are refusing the Orders I issued?
Birther nutz aside, I would like to see a law so that any president-elect would have to provide their original birth certificate, and/or proof of citizenship, to the voters before swearing in. It seems a simple enough thing to do, if you are going to lead the nation as our president.
"For the first time in all my years of service to our great nation, and at great peril to my career and future, I am choosing to disobey what I believe are illegal orders, including an order to deploy to Afghanistan for my second tour of duty there.
I will disobey my orders to deploy because I – and I believe all servicemen and women and the American people – deserve the truth about President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to the office of the presidency and the commander in chief."
Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin (selected for promotion to Colonel)
Not an April Fools’ joke: Army officer defies orders unless Obama shows birth certificate « Iowa Independent (http://iowaindependent.com/31168/not-an-april-fools%E2%80%99- - broken link)
joke-army-officer-defies-orders-unless-obama-shows-birth-certificate
Lt Col Lakin must have missed the part about military officers not getting to decide on their own whether or not a president is constitutionally elected and therefor "the lawful authority."
Please defend your assertion that anyone who questions the citizenship of Barack Obama is dumb. If this man, who holds his position based on his meeting the constitutional requirements to do so, can't readily produce uncontroversial evidence of citizenship, why should he retain his position? Any native-born American who had to prove his or her citizenship status could, with very little effort, produce a valid and irrefutable document that confirmed a birth on American soil. Why is it that the President of the United States is to be excused from having to do this very same thing? The subject of this thread had to produce his birth certifcate in order to be processed for deployment; why is Obama not held to the same minimal standard? Does anyone really imagine/beleive that if Barack Obama had a notarized copy of his American birth certificate, tucked away in the family safety deposit box, that he would just simply produce it and make all this controversy disappear. It is the very fact of his not producing it that reinforces the belief that such a document does not exist.
An analogy:
Teacher to student: "Did you do the homework assignment?"
Student: "Yes I did."
Teacher: "Please turn it in now."
Student: "I did it but I am not going to show it to you.
Teacher: "Excuse me, let me have it right now."
Student: "I will show you a note from my parents that states that I did it."
Teacher: "That won't do, I need to see the actual assignment."
Student: "You'll just have to take my word for the fact that I did it."
And so on and so on and so on... Get the idea?
He produced it----when he got his American passport. Unless you are saying that the State Department was in on the conspiracy.
He produced it----when he got his first driver's licence. Unless you are saying that Hawaii in 1978 was in on the conspiracy.
He may have had to produce it when he got married.
He produced it----during his campaign. And the state of Hawaii has affirmed that what he displayed on his campaign website was a legal document, issued and notarized by state officials, that certified his birth in Hawaii.
Your entire teacher/student scenario doesn't apply. Birthers are arguing that a conspiracy is involved, but they don't have an actual conspiracy story. If you have a case, make it. Not with "well, maybe it went this way, oh, no, okay so it happened this way, oh no, that's not logical, um, maybe, no, um...well how about instead of a coherent theory, we'll just um, call people who disagree with us names and dismiss logic and rationality altogether?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) he's correct. There's a little thingie called the de facto officer doctrine that shoots down his whole defense. Maybe he should go with a defense of stress-induced mental illness. 
