• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Army slams door on Obama Eligibility details

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If I was a cynic....

I don't think Lakin is asking to put the president’s credentials on trial, he's just asking to see them.


An Army “investigating officer” has banished evidence about the controversy over President Obama’s eligibility – or lack thereof – to be commander-in-chief from a pending hearing for a career military doctor who announced he is refusing orders until Obama documents his constitutional status.

“In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president’s credentials on trial,” wrote Daniel J. Driscoll in a memorandum determining what evidence the defense for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin will be allowed to explore at next week’s hearing.

“It is my opinion the discovery items pertaining to the president’s credentials are not relevant to the proof of any element of the charges and specifications set forth in the charge sheet,” he continued. “Consequently I will not examine the documents or witnesses pertinent to the president or his credentials to hold office.”

The ruling came prior to a scheduled Article 32 hearing for Lakin, who posted a video inviting his own court hearing because of the status of the president and questions over whether his eligibility means orders given under his control would be invalid.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=8241
 

Steve

Well-known member
“In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president’s credentials on trial,”

One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

notice it says.. "defend the Constitution" and bear allegiance to the same...

Not defend the country?. but to Defend the Constitution....

so if an Officer challenges the government on it's failure to uphold the constitution, is he not fulfilling his oath?
 
Top