Military Judge Will Not Consider Obama Birth Claims In Birther Court Martial
Following up on James Joyner’s post from earlier today about the court martial of Lt. Col Terry Lakin for refusing to follow deployment orders until he is provided with proof of Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, a military judge ruled today that the issue of the President’s birth cannot be considered in Lakin’s trial:
A military judge has rejected any consideration of President Barack Obama’s birth record in the military trial of an Army officer who refused to deploy because he doubted the president’s authority to send him. The judge said questions about Obama’s birth status are irrelevant to the charges.
Since Lakin is charged with failure to obey a valid order from a superior officer, this is the correct decision, and it’s not all that surprising.
Absolutely. Resign your commission. Then bitch.
Out of curiosity, how are military judges appointed?
Here’s a link, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Court-Martial
It shouldn’t be about his birth certificate! It’s very simple! Basically their are two types of law! Natural Law or Mans law! I believe Merriam Webster should be considered credible!
Natural: living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society:”
SO TO BE NATURAL I SHOULDN”T NEED TO CONSULT MAN”S LAW!!!!
I must be a born of parents who are citizens of land to which I am born. the only way one can be a citizen and not consult man’s law. So exactly what else do you reference to determine Natural? The 14th ammendment and immigration Laws have nothing to do with the qualifications to be President! So just how Is obama eligible! If he’s not then exactly how are the officer’s under him legitimate? P.S. All military officer’s including the military judges are Appointed/employed/serve under or by Obama’s consent! Just to ensure you all understand what Terry is up against!
the only way one can be a citizen and not consult man’s law.
Without laws created by men, there are no such thing as citizens (or nations).
Natural: living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society:”
Bubbab, if you can’t tell the difference between “man’s laws” and “nature’s laws” I suggest you shut up. But, in the meanwhile, here is a hint: Nature doesn’t give a rat’s ass about our politics (or our constitution).
If only I can avoid becoming as fearful of ‘birthers’ as Nixon was of ‘hippies.’
Hey, Mantis and Tom P Try Reading the Declaration of independence! Where did your rights come from? (Natural Law, Natures God)! Anyway, thanks for proving my point though.
Only in one place does the law state the requirements to be president. (The Consitution) Any reference to the 14th ammendment or immigration law is wholely irrelevent. 2. There are only two types of law! (Natural and Mans Law) 3. Natural Law is not dependent on mans law! 4 Mans law never trumps Natural Law! 5. Read the Declaration of independence! Where did your rights come from? (Natural Law, Natures God)! 6. Natural: living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society:” Since his father is British two countries under man’s law can claim him as a citizen. It’s that simple if I have to refer in anyway to determine citizenship to man’s law I am not natural born.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
The only rights endowed by the creator, per the Declaration, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing about nations, citizenship, or birth certificates. Indeed, in the next clause it clearly states that governments are established by men to secure these rights. Governments govern nations, a creation of man, and define citizenship, also a creation of man. There are no natural laws of citizenship, per the founders or anyone else with a brain (birthers excluded).
You’re an idiot.
Mantis , Well at least your trying. But exactky; what rights don’t involve Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Can you name even one!!! So, again you prove my point Governments charter is to protect these rights. The rights given by Natural Law and Natures God!
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
And when a government doesn’t do it what does it say your duty is!!!
“Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,”
Who’s the idiot??? I didn’t vote for someone who was ineligible! But I’m guessing you did!
PS; where’s you answers: Da!
Who’s the idiot???
Still you.
Mantis, that’s right take your marbles and run you cannot argue my point in any logical way go study John Locke’s human reasoning and his two tretises of government and you may get a better understanding of natural law. I don’t have too call you names you’ve shown yourself in your own postings. But it’s been fun!