Main Menu

Kerchner appeal scheduled for next week

Snowball's chance in hell

June 15, 2010
Mario Apuzzo Esq.
Eric Fleisig-Greene Esq.
RE: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al v. Barack Obama, et al
Case Number: 09-4209
District Case Number: 1-09-cv-00253
Dear Counsel:
The Court has directed me to advise counsel that the above-entitled case(s) will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 pursuant to 3rd Cir. LAR 34.1(a). Since there will be no oral argument, your presence will not be required.
Very truly yours,
Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk
By:
Tiffany Washington, Calendar Clerk

MMW/TLW
Pursuant to IOP Chapter 2, you are hereby advised that your appeal will be submitted before the following panel: SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

,

147 Responses to Kerchner appeal scheduled for next week

  1. avatar
    Rickey June 28, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    Some Third Circuit trivia:

    Judge Barry was appointed by President Bill Clinton and she is the sister of Donald Trump.

    Judge Hardiman was appointed by President George W. Bush and was confirmed in a unanimous vote by the Senate in 2007.

    Judge Slotiver was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979. She is 78 years old and is one of the judges who ruled in 1996 that the Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional.

  2. avatar
    G June 28, 2010 at 2:27 am #

    Thanks for the interesting background info on the judges, Rickey! 🙂

  3. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2010 at 3:30 am #

    Virtual popcorn, anyone? 🙂

  4. avatar
    Jules June 28, 2010 at 6:39 am #

    The absence of oral arguments will prevent this case from becoming as much of a circus as the birthers would like.

    I don’t know whether Apuzzo doesn’t understand the political question doctrine or just doesn’t care. Pursuing this matter would necessarily give rise to concerns about the political question doctrine, as the claim seeks to challenge the result of the electoral college vote (whose certification is the clear prerogative of Congress) and seeks removal of a President (a task reserved to Congress by the constitutional clauses on impeachment). Apuzzo’s response to the Government’s motion says little more than “but it deals with a matter of legal interpretation”. It does nothing to address the apparent reservation of such purely political decisions about them to Congress.

    Apuzzo’s approach to the case has made it more rather than less likely that any judge would regard the case to be a non-justiceable claim over a political question. Apuzzo has requested an order that Congress hold investigative hearings, which makes the claim more likely to be dismissed based on the political question doctrine; the allocation of legislative time is about as political and non-judicial as you can get.

  5. avatar
    James June 28, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    I do agree the Kerchner case will most likely be dimissed and SCOTUS WILL NOT take the case. I think it will be dismissed exclusively on standing. As far as political question, the case is certainly not a political question because Obama was sued AFTER the political process as run its course. At the point Obama was sued, it was entirely a legal question. Anyway, I think Kerchner and Mario should see what they can do to help LTC Terry Lakin. His case has the best chance of going somewhere. I do believe with the amount of law out there in due process, the right to due process, justice and fair trial would weigh the implications of the production of Obama’s records.

  6. avatar
    richCares June 28, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    James, you keep bringing up Lakin, make this comparison:
    Gen. Petraeus: a great American Patriot, accepting his orders and serving his country
    Lcl. Lakin: a political hack refusing his orders, AWOL

  7. avatar
    Bovril June 28, 2010 at 9:27 am #

    James, James, James

    How many MORE Times will it be necessary to demonstrate to you that the Lakin case is in every way a dead letter for Birfers.

    The Court Martial has neither interest, intention, desire or legal standing to make the case anything other than what it is.

    Lakin defiantly defied orders and refused to deploy as per his chain of command. HIS chain of command, not the military chain to the CinC. That’s it, end of story.

    Don’t take my or our word for it or those of this board, We have already pointed you in the direction of CAAFLOG where actual military lawyers have provided actual information and actual facts….The 100% consensus is that Lakin is going to be found guilty on all charges, he will not get the magical discovery and he will probably get 2-4 years.

    Neither Mario or Kerchner will be allowed to shoehorn themselves in, not gonna happen.

  8. avatar
    yguy June 28, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    …CAAFLOG where actual military lawyers have provided actual information and actual facts….

    And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so.

  9. avatar
    Rickey June 28, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    James: As far as political question, the case is certainly not a political question because Obama was sued AFTER the political process as run its course.At the point Obama was sued, it was entirely a legal question.

    Thank you for once again demonstrating your ignorance about what “political question” means. It has nothing to due with whether an action is brought before, during or after an election. From Black’s Law Dictionary:

    “Political questions. Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character, or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers. A matter of dispute which can be handled more appropriately by another branch of the government is not a “justiciable” matter for the courts.”

    The only entity empowered by the Constitution to remove a sitting President is the Congress. Mario’s case is going nowhere, and Lakin is not going to get his discovery (as every expert on military law has attested).

  10. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    yguy:
    And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so.

    Yet another pointless, B.S. hypothetical and about as likely as you admitting you have no idea what you’re talking bout.

  11. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    yguy:
    And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so.

    Yet another pointless, B.S. hypothetical and about as likely as you admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about.

  12. avatar
    Rickey June 28, 2010 at 11:52 am #

    yguy:
    And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so.

    That’s about as likely as Obama announcing that he is the son of Markus Wolf and a black Indonesian woman.

    One Dwight Sullivan has also written the following:

    As we’ve discussed, evidence concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve has no legal relevance to the charges facing LTC Lakin. Those documents, therefore, cannot “prove his innocence.” Hence, the military judge will deny any motion to compel production of documents or witnesses concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility.

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/06/11/paul-rolf-jensens-analysis-of-what-will-happen-in-the-lakin-case/

  13. avatar
    sfjeff June 28, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    “if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign”

    Luckily we have a system to address that. Congress has the authority to impeach and convict the President.

  14. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    Official “Attention Birthers Ahead” sign:

    http://www.alchemysite.com/blog/sisyphus_sign.jpg

  15. avatar
    Greg June 28, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    yguy: And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so.

    You think it’s obvious that they could not legally take his orders?

    I’ve found that in the law, there are the easy questions, then there are the questions you have actually thought about.

    Tell me, yguy, if a President says, “hey, I just realized that my mother lied to me and that I was, in fact, born abroad in conditions that make me ineligible to be elected to the position of President. But, on advice of White House counsel, I will continue to act as President until the end of my term. I committed no fraud, my ineligibility was unknown to me and my family and the people have spoken and the only method of removal is through impeachment” whose orders do officers follow? The President’s? The Vice-President’s? The Speaker of the House’s? The losing candidate for President?

    Tomorrow, Obama admits that he’s ineligible and orders a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Biden says to stay put. Pelosi says to invade Pakistan. McCain says to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” Where do the troops go?

    Please explain your answer, your reasoning, and cite cases, please.

  16. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Lupin: Official “Attention Birthers Ahead” sign:http://www.alchemysite.com/blog/sisyphus_sign.jpg

    NICE! A dung beetle works as a good analogy for birthers as well.

  17. avatar
    Bovril June 28, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Oy Yguy

    Doncha just love it when your cack comments are shown to be worthless..?

  18. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    yguy: And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so.

    For starters, how about a link? I would like to read the entire discussion. Some people that post here make a habit of taking statements out of context.

  19. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Greg: Tomorrow, Obama admits that he’s ineligible and orders a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Biden says to stay put. Pelosi says to invade Pakistan. McCain says to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” Where do the troops go?

    Please explain your answer, your reasoning, and cite cases, please.

    An excellent question Greg! I’d like to know how yguy thought that Mr. Sullivan’s hypothetical in any way supported his arguments (such as they are…).

  20. avatar
    bob June 28, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Apuzzo’s unintentionally hilarious latest musing.

  21. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 28, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    Scientist: For starters, how about a link? I would like to read the entire discussion. Some people that post here make a habit of taking statements out of context.

    I think that quoting out of context and throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks are the primary birther tactics. Mr. Sullivan’s hypothetical seemed quite reasonable to me – I’m just curious as to how yguy manages to misunderstand it so as to think that it bolsters his position…

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    Rickey (@ James): Thank you for once again demonstrating your ignorance about what “political question” means.

    If birthers knew what they were talking about, they wouldn’t be birthers. So this kind of mistake is normal for them, and hardly worth special notice.

  23. avatar
    yguy June 28, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Rickey:
    That’s about as likely as Obama announcing that he is the son of Markus Wolf and a black Indonesian woman.

    One Dwight Sullivan has also written the following:

    As we’ve discussed, evidence concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve has no legal relevance to the charges facing LTC Lakin.Those documents, therefore, cannot “prove his innocence.”

    The likeliness of the scenario is of no moment. The point is that Sullivan’s pronouncement as quoted by you is presumably a product of the same calculus which is somehow inadequate to the task of addressing a scenario in which the answer ought to be abrasively clear.

  24. avatar
    yguy June 28, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    Greg:
    You think it’s obvious that they could not legally take his orders?

    You don’t have to think when you know. And I do. 🙂

    Tell me, yguy, if a President says, “hey, I just realized that my mother lied to me and that I was, in fact, born abroad in conditions that make me ineligible to be elected to the position of President….”

    Not possible. The only way he could have been unaware of that on 1/19/09 is because he wanted it that way.

    whose orders do officers follow?

    Not Obama’s. For the moment there is no sense going any farther than that.

  25. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Mr. Sullivan’s hypothetical seemed quite reasonable to me

    I am still waiting to read the full text in Mr Sullivan’s own words. reagardless of Mr Sullivan’s opinion, it seems to me there is one President at a time. If a President admits to an impeachable offense (and being born outside the US is not one) he remains President unless and until Congress decides to impeach him and convict him. Moreover, it is far from certain that the child of a US citizen would not be eligible even if born overseas. I am aware of the wording of the statute, but you will have to forgiive me for wanting an interpretation of its application from someone more authoritative than yguy.

  26. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    yguy: Not possible. The only way he could have been unaware of that on 1/19/09 is because he wanted it that way.

    And you know that how?

  27. avatar
    Black Lion June 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Bob’s comment on Mario’s newest posting is on point. Mario’s desperation is coming out in his writings. He has basically admitted that he has no case and it is not about the law. Amazing. I think Mario’s knows his case is going to get dismissed and is trying to get out in front of it….

    So excerpts from Mario’s latest latrine reading….

    “If what you say is all true, then please answer for me two questions:

    1. Where specifically in Honolulu, Hawaii was Obama born? Do not just tell me in Honolulu. We are talking about the President of the United States. Hence, I want to know the exact address in Honolulu where he first saw the light of day. We are only dealing with 1961 and such information is readily available, especially since Obama says he was born in a hospital. Also, do not simply say that he was born in some-named hospital, for you will have to provide me with credible and sufficient evidence from such an institution to support your answer. Also, some unconfirmed letter that Obama allegedly wrote on January 24, 2009 to Kapi’olani Medical Center is not such evidence, for Obama never confirmed that he wrote it and the letter is not from the hospital.

    2. Who was physically present when Obama was born? I doubt that in 1961 an 18-year-old girl could give birth to a baby all alone. Hence, since as you claim Obama’s birth has been confirmed by all these authorities, then you or at least one of these authorities should be able to tell me who was present to witness baby Obama come out of his mother’s womb. Also, we can assume that the person who was present would be the person who would have “officially” reported Obama’s birth to the Hawaiian health department authorities, for surely neither Nancy Pelosi nor any past or present Hawaiian authority of whom you so glowingly speak claims to have been personally present during his alleged birth in Honolulu or to otherwise have personal knowledge of how, when, and where Obama was born. In your answer, please provide the name of the person that was present during and actually witnessed the alleged birth and his/her function at that time. Please do not whine that my question is burdensome or otherwise unreasonable given the time lapse. Again, we are only talking about 1961 and we are told that Obama’s birth was in a modern hospital. Hence, the answer to my question should be rather easy to obtain from the medical file that is in the possession of the alleged birth hospital.

    Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy.”

  28. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    yguy:
    You don’t have to think when you know. And I do. Not possible. The only way he could have been unaware of that on 1/19/09 is because he wanted it that way.
    Not Obama’s. For the moment there is no sense going any farther than that.

    Another steaming pile of meaningless whatever.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 28, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    yguy: You don’t have to think when you know. And I do. Not possible. The only way he could have been unaware of that on 1/19/09 is because he wanted it that way.Not Obama’s. For the moment there is no sense going any farther than that.

    So in other words you have no solution. How about this if Obama isn’t eligible who do yuo think rightfully should be president and why?

  30. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    “Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy.”

    Pathetic. Is he really a lawyer? Proof?

  31. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 28, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Scientist:
    I am still waiting to read the full text in Mr Sullivan’s own words.reagardless of Mr Sullivan’s opinion, it seems to me there is one President at a time. If a President admits to an impeachable offense (and being born outside the US is not one) he remains President unless and until Congress decides to impeach him and convict him.Moreover, it is far from certain that the child of a US citizen would not be eligible even if born overseas.I am aware of the wording of the statute, but you will have to forgiive me for wanting an interpretation of its application from someone more authoritative than yguy.

    That’s why I’m curious as to how yguy thinks that the hypothetical helps his case. I think he just wants to say phrases like “even it President Obama admitted his ineligibility” as often as possible. I mean really, what else has he got? I’m also interested in yguy’s reasoning as to why the president could only have been willfully unaware on 1/19/09…

  32. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 28, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Black Lion: Bob’s comment on Mario’s newest posting is on point. Mario’s desperation is coming out in his writings. He has basically admitted that he has no case and it is not about the law. Amazing. I think Mario’s knows his case is going to get dismissed and is trying to get out in front of it….So excerpts from Mario’s latest latrine reading….“If what you say is all true, then please answer for me two questions: 1. Where specifically in Honolulu, Hawaii was Obama born? Do not just tell me in Honolulu. We are talking about the President of the United States. Hence, I want to know the exact address in Honolulu where he first saw the light of day. We are only dealing with 1961 and such information is readily available, especially since Obama says he was born in a hospital. Also, do not simply say that he was born in some-named hospital, for you will have to provide me with credible and sufficient evidence from such an institution to support your answer. Also, some unconfirmed letter that Obama allegedly wrote on January 24, 2009 to Kapi’olani Medical Center is not such evidence, for Obama never confirmed that he wrote it and the letter is not from the hospital. 2. Who was physically present when Obama was born? I doubt that in 1961 an 18-year-old girl could give birth to a baby all alone. Hence, since as you claim Obama’s birth has been confirmed by all these authorities, then you or at least one of these authorities should be able to tell me who was present to witness baby Obama come out of his mother’s womb. Also, we can assume that the person who was present would be the person who would have “officially” reported Obama’s birth to the Hawaiian health department authorities, for surely neither Nancy Pelosi nor any past or present Hawaiian authority of whom you so glowingly speak claims to have been personally present during his alleged birth in Honolulu or to otherwise have personal knowledge of how, when, and where Obama was born. In your answer, please provide the name of the person that was present during and actually witnessed the alleged birth and his/her function at that time. Please do not whine that my question is burdensome or otherwise unreasonable given the time lapse. Again, we are only talking about 1961 and we are told that Obama’s birth was in a modern hospital. Hence, the answer to my question should be rather easy to obtain from the medical file that is in the possession of the alleged birth hospital. Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy.”

    What exactly do any of those details matter? Can Mario name for us the exact location the last 5 presidents were born? How about the last 3? I’m sure some presidents had young mothers too so what exactly does it matter

  33. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 28, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    Majority Will: “Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy.”Pathetic. Is he really a lawyer? Proof?

    “Judge I’m the prosecutor in this case but don’t expect me to actually provide proof don’t tell me the burden of proof is on the city or state and not on the guy sitting across the court. I don’t have to prove anything wahhhhh”

  34. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    “Judge I’m the prosecutor in this case but don’t expect me to actually provide proof don’t tell me the burden of proof is on the city or state and not on the guy sitting across the court.I don’t have to prove anything wahhhhh”

    Excellent impression!

  35. avatar
    Greg June 28, 2010 at 2:05 pm #

    yguy:Not possible. The only way he could have been unaware of that on 1/19/09 is because he wanted it that way.

    Quibling with the hypo. I didn’t say that he was unaware, yguy, in the hypo, I said he claimed that.

    Let’s take your quibble, though. How does it change the situation if the President didn’t know he was ineligible?

    Are his orders valid?

    And, if the situation is as I’ve stated, that the President claims he was mistaken, would we have to wait for a court to determine whether he did know?

    Not Obama’s. For the moment there is no sense going any farther than that.

    Really? I would have thought that this was a very natural outgrowth of your theory.

    If Obama was ineligible for the Presidency from the get-go, is he not president because he never was President? So, Biden becomes President, right? Or, are all the votes for him invalid, in which case there is no President or Vice President? In that case, do we go to Pelosi, or do we assume that McCain is now President?

    If you’re not up to that task, please explain your theory for why Obama’s orders would be invalid. Cite cases.

  36. avatar
    richCares June 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    yguy, you should contact Gen Petraeus as he is following Obama’s orders. Please tell him to stop it, that he don’t have to.
    .
    But being a true Patriot, Gen.Petraeus follows those orders and says to yguy “Buzz off hatefull one”.

  37. avatar
    ellid June 28, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    What I want to know is why a letter on White House letterhead, signed by the President, and posted on a public web site/printed in a publicly distributed newsletter, NEEDS to be confirmed. Res ipse loquitur, as they say.

  38. avatar
    JoZeppy June 28, 2010 at 2:22 pm #

    Majority Will: “Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy.”
    Pathetic. Is he really a lawyer? Proof?

    So let’s get this right…Mario asks a bunch of questions that are by no stretch required to establish legal eligibility to be president, isn’t concerned about legal standards to establish eligibility, nor is he concerned about where the burden of proof lies on any of these questions, or any laws that would prevent this knowledge from being public.

    So it comes down to being a petulant child. I want the information, because I want it, and I’ll have a tantrum if I don’t get it.

  39. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    I was present at Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii. My challenge to Mario is-prove that I wasn’t. Go on, I dare you.

    By the way, he was a beautiful infant and cried very loudly. That’s all the detail I care to share in public. Now, get to work Mario.

  40. avatar
    nbC June 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm #

    Huff and Puff got arraigned in Monroe County today… Details to follow, so far it seems they will remain under house arrest pending the outcome of their trial.

  41. avatar
    ellid June 28, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    Scientist: I was present at Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii.My challenge to Mario is-prove that I wasn’t.Go on, I dare you.By the way, he was a beautiful infant and cried very loudly.That’s all the detail I care to share in public.Now, get to work Mario.

    What about the rumors that he immediately peed on the doctor? Any truth to those?

  42. avatar
    yguy June 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    Greg:
    Quibling with the hypo. I didn’t say that he was unaware, yguy, in the hypo, I said he claimed that.
    Let’s take your quibble, though. How does it change the situation if the President didn’t know he was ineligible?

    If he did, he was not just ineligible, but an enemy of the Constitution.

    Are his orders valid?

    Nope.

    And, if the situation is as I’ve stated, that the President claims he was mistaken, would we have to wait for a court to determine whether he did know?

    If by “we” you mean officers, military or otherwise, who report directly to Obama, no.

    please explain your theory for why Obama’s orders would be invalid. Cite cases.

    There are no cases to be cited, because there is no precedent for dealing with a successful pretender to the Presidency. The only case I’m aware of that even comes close is Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)., wherein Rehnquist opined that impeachments are not reviewable because “sole” power over them is explicitly vested in Congress, leaving open the possibility of an A2S1C5 controversy being justiciable.

  43. avatar
    nbC June 28, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    <blockquote.There are no cases to be cited, because there is no precedent for dealing with a successful pretender to the Presidency. The only case I’m aware of that even comes close is Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)., wherein Rehnquist opined that impeachments are not reviewable because “sole” power over them is explicitly vested in Congress, leaving open the possibility of an A2S1C5 controversy being justiciable.

    Using the same logic, A2S1C5 ‘controversies’ are not justiciable either. Simple really.

    Yguy: If he did, he was not just ineligible, but an enemy of the Constitution.

    Like those who want to remove a duly elected president through unconstitutional means you mean?

    Fascinating how quick you are to judge while ignoring the impact…

  44. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    ellid: What about the rumors that he immediately peed on the doctor? Any truth to those?

    None.

  45. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    yguy: What are your qualifications to make definitive statements about the law? Or about anything????

  46. avatar
    Majority Will June 28, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    So let’s get this right…Mario asks a bunch of questions that are by no stretch required to establish legal eligibility to be president, isn’t concerned about legal standards to establish eligibility, nor is he concerned about where the burden of proof lies on any of these questions, or any laws that would prevent this knowledge from being public.So it comes down to being a petulant child.I want the information, because I want it, and I’ll have a tantrum if I don’t get it.

    Yep. And that is pathetic.

  47. avatar
    G June 28, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    bob: Apuzzo’s unintentionally hilarious latest musing.

    Shorter Mario: *waaaaaah*!!! Stop pointing out to us birthers that we are being neither reasonable nor rational!!! Stop telling us the truth and start telling us what we want to hear!! We demand allegence to faith, not science and logic or laws! The laws should be whatever we wish them to be, not as they are written! Give in to our unreasonable demands and pretend we seem smart, for once! …Give me a magic pony…NOW!

  48. avatar
    G June 28, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    nbC: Huff and Puff got arraigned in Monroe County today… Details to follow, so far it seems they will remain under house arrest pending the outcome of their trial.

    LOL!

    Huff & Puff. That’s hilarious!

    Thanks for the update & let us know more when you find out more.

  49. avatar
    G June 28, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    yguy: The likeliness of the scenario is of no moment.

    What a bizarre statement that makes absolutely no sense at all. It sounds more like some acid-trip version of a fortune cookie – its almost sounds profound…in a completely nonsensical sort of way. LOL!

    Did you mean to say something different and just completely butchered your english or did you just randomly string words together here?

  50. avatar
    sfjeff June 28, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    I notice Yguy danced around who would be President under his theoretical scenario.

    But I wonder- if Bush came out today and advised that Bush was not eligible to be President when he was elected, would that in Yguy’s opinion- void every Executive Action he took?

    Would that mean that Roberts would not be the Chief justice?

    Because I can tell you right now, if that is the case, I am going to start a campaign to require Bush to demonstrate that he was eligible when he was elected, or otherwise have all of his actions voided.

  51. avatar
    Greg June 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    yguy: If by “we” you mean officers, military or otherwise, who report directly to Obama, no.

    How do they know which situation we’re in?

    Will they be prosecuted if they follow his orders? Will they be prosecuted for not following the orders of President Biden/Pelosi/McCain?

    yguy: leaving open the possibility of an A2S1C5 controversy being justiciable.

    Doesn’t that mean it’s an open question about whether the generals have to disobey Obama’s orders or if they have to wait until he’s impeached by Congress?

    If there are no cases on point, how is it anything but an open question?

    If there are no cases to cite, can you analogize to any other body of law? Can you walk us mere lawyers through your reasoning? It’s probably just my law school training, but I have trouble believing that a judge would buy the “it’s abrasively obvious” line of argument. They tend to like reasoning.

  52. avatar
    racosta June 28, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    now that the Tim Adams story is dead and buried, James reverts to bringing up the Lakin story. Poor deleued James has been wrong on every OMG moment.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    Scientist: I was present at Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii. My challenge to Mario is-prove that I wasn’t. Go on, I dare you.

    I think I remember you. I was vacationing in Hawaii with my parents, and I asked “hey can I watch a real baby be born.” Dr. West was a friend of Dad’s and he let is look on (at a discrete angle of course). And yes, baby Obama did pee on the doctor. I remember West saying at the time: “Son, you’re gonna grow up to be president!” Funny how some things stick with you.

    Why do you think I spend so much time on this blog?

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    Majority Will: “Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy.”

    Well, we will just let it be a surprise.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2010 at 5:27 pm #

    bob: Apuzzo’s unintentionally hilarious latest musing.

    I think Apuzzo looks good in a dunce hat, don’t you?

    I must say, it’s a very tepid, tired-sounding comment. Same old, same old.

    If this is supposed to be addressed to me, he’s trying to play to my well-known honesty and sense of the truth to say: “we don’t know this but…”. I’m not going to say anything. It doesn’t deserve a response.

    I will issue my own challenge to Mr. Apuzzo later today. Stay tuned.

  56. avatar
    yguy June 28, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Greg:
    How do they know which situation we’re in?

    If you’re asking how they know whether or not he knew he was ineligible, that has no bearing on whether they should obey his orders.

    Doesn’t that mean it’s an open question about whether the generals have to disobey Obama’s orders or if they have to wait until he’s impeached by Congress?

    No, that means Nixon didn’t address the issue.

    Can you walk us mere lawyers through your reasoning?

    To legally wield Presidential authority, a person must meet all the constitutional requirements for doing so; wherefore if said person doesn’t meet those of A2S1C5, he or she cannot be President.

    Dunno what the hell’s so hard about this.

  57. avatar
    katahdin June 28, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    Scientist: None.

    But I heard that a little golden halo encircled his head. Any truth to that?

  58. avatar
    misha June 28, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    yguy: Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible

    If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a trolley car.

  59. avatar
    Rickey June 28, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    yguy:
    The likeliness of the scenario is of no moment.

    And the value of positing a hypothetical which has zero chance of occurring is precisely what?

    The point is that Sullivan’s pronouncement as quoted by you is presumably a product of the same calculus which is somehow inadequate to the task of addressing a scenario in which the answer ought to be abrasively clear.

    Addressing a scenario which has no possibility of coming to pass is a waste of time. By the way, I too was looking for a link to Dwight Sullivan’s actual comments, because you make it appear that he raised the hypothetical question of Obama admitting that he is ineligible but refusing to resign. In fact, as the following exchange demonstrates, he was merely responding to a hypothetical which you raised:

    yguy says:
    May 24, 2010 at 9:37 pm (Quote)

    That said, I have a question for you: if tomorrow Obama were to admit publicly to being ineligible, and yet refused to resign, is it your opinion that the proper response of the military would be to continue to execute his orders?

    Dwight Sullivan says:
    May 25, 2010 at 1:07 am (Quote)

    Yguy, I went to the first phase of OCS in 1980 and for the past 30 years, I’ve been either on active duty or in the Reserve every minute of my life. And in that entire time, I didn’t receive a single order from the President of the United States. If a constitutionally ineligible President were in office, I would continue to obey the orders of my commanding officers, just like I always have. By the way, that’s what the de facto officer doctrine provides for. Here’s how the Supreme Court described it:

    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, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1124, 30 L.Ed. 178 (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.

    Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180-81 (1995).

    In the scenario you posit, I believe the highest echelons of the military would continue to obey the Commander in Chief unless and until was impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. In the United States, it isn’t up to the military to decide whether the President is eligible to serve. There are many nationa where it is — and I’m very thankful I don’t live in one of those. But that decision is, as the saying goes, above my pay grade. I would continue to obey the orders that I receive from my superiors.

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/05/14/hawaii-governor-statement-on-birther-issue/#comment-14785

    The discussion is then continued in another thread, wherein Sullivan points out that you misstated what he had said:


    yguy says:
    June 3, 2010 at 10:36 am (Quote)

    I don’t know that anyone who thinks military personnel would be legally obligated to take orders from a CiC who had publicly announced his ineligibility for office has any business questioning the sanity of others.
    Reply

    *
    Dwight Sullivan says:
    June 3, 2010 at 11:50 am (Quote)

    Yguy, you misstate what I wrote. Using myself as an example, I pointed out that servicemembers don’t usually receive orders directly from the President. I noted, consistent with the de facto officer doctrine, that in the situation you posit, servicemembers would continue to obey orders from their military superiors.

    As to those few military officers who directly receive orders from the President, I didn’t say that they would be “legally obligated” to obey orders from a President who publicly states that he’s constitutionally ineligible. I didn’t render a legal opinion about that issue at all. Nor would I, since I haven’t done the extensive legal research that would be necessary to form such an opinion. Rather, I made a statement about what I believed would happen (not what would be legally required), but noted that such a decision is “above my pay grade.”

    If the situation you posited were to occur, I have no doubt that our senior military leadership would receive sage advice from their senior legal advisors, including the Judge Advocates General and the legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/06/02/lakin-io-refuses-defense-requests-to-compel-production-of-evidence-concerning-president-obamas-eligibility/

    Others here will note that he never said that it is an “open question” whether senior officers could legally obey the President;s orders under your scenario. He only said that he doesn’t have a legal opinion because he hasn’t researched it. He also said that if he were placed in that position he would continue to obey the orders of his superiors, and he believes that the upper echelon of the military would continue to obey the President’s orders unless and until he was impeached and removed from office.

  60. avatar
    Greg June 28, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    yguy: To legally wield Presidential authority, a person must meet all the constitutional requirements for doing so; wherefore if said person doesn’t meet those of A2S1C5, he or she cannot be President.

    And what does it mean that he/she cannot be President? Does it mean that he/she was never President? Who took the oath on Jan. 20, then? Who is President? VP, Speaker of the House, opposing candidate?

    And, what about the orders issued before it became clear that the President was not eligible?

    No, that means Nixon didn’t address the issue.

    Define open question, please. What does it mean in yguy world?

  61. avatar
    Greg June 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    What if the President “admits” he’s ineligible, but he’s wrong?

  62. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    Rickey: By the way, I too was looking for a link to Dwight Sullivan’s actual comments, because you make it appear that he raised the hypothetical question of Obama admitting that he is ineligible but refusing to resign. In fact, as the following exchange demonstrates, he was merely responding to a hypothetical which you raised:

    In fact, and not surprisingly, yguy has compeletely mis-represented Dwight Sullivan’s position. Thanks, Rickey for supplying the link, which yguy refused to, because he must know it would expose his sleazy lies.

  63. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    katahdin: But I heard that a little golden halo encircled his head. Any truth to that?

    Ask Dr C…

  64. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm #

    yguy: To legally wield Presidential authority, a person must meet all the constitutional requirements for doing so; wherefore if said person doesn’t meet those of A2S1C5, he or she cannot be President.

    Says who (besides you)?

  65. avatar
    sfjeff June 28, 2010 at 6:18 pm #

    So now that we have seen the actual quotes, rather than Yguy’s paraphrasing-

    Does this mean that Yguy was mistaken? Or is he a habitual liar?

    Remember that Yguy has asserted that Obama is a habitual liar based upon fewer demonstrated instances of incorrect information than Yguy has done himself here.

  66. avatar
    nbc June 28, 2010 at 6:34 pm #

    Scientist:
    Says who (besides you)?

    Certainly the law would say otherwise?

  67. avatar
    nbc June 28, 2010 at 6:36 pm #

    yguy: Dunno what the hell’s so hard about this.

    Isn’t that part of the problem?

  68. avatar
    Benji Franklin June 28, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    yguy: To legally wield Presidential authority, a person must meet all the constitutional requirements for doing so

    Yeah, yguy – and all the controlling legal authorities have judged that Obama met those requirements and is the lawfully elected and Constitutionally eligible POTUS. Obama -disqualifying alternative Constitutional eligibility requirements hypothesized, hallucinated, or fantasized by others like yourself, are destined to find enduring expression only in reality-denying alternative histories and footnotes of books about people who are insane. Your interpretation of the Constitution is, accordingly, revealingly autobiographical.

    Benji Franklin

  69. avatar
    yguy June 28, 2010 at 7:59 pm #

    Rickey:
    And the value of positing a hypothetical which has zero chance of occurring is precisely what?

    I have posited no such hypothetical. The value of positing a possible scenario, however improbable, is that the response to it, which in this case presumably has the same logical underpinnings as Sullivan’s pronouncement that Obama’s eligibility is irrelevant to Lakin’s case, has the potential to expose flaws in those underpinnings, as it did in this instance.

    Addressing a scenario which has no possibility of coming to pass is a waste of time.

    Sullivan obviously thought otherwise.

    you make it appear that he raised the hypothetical question of Obama admitting that he is ineligible but refusing to resign.

    No, that was a specious inference drawn by you – not that it matters, since he stipulated to it arguendo.

    Others here will note that he never said that it is an “open question”…

    Rather than taking the time to address such pusillanimous nitpicking, I will point out that my comment on this thread was prompted by the fact that Sullivan failed to raise any objections to this post in the same CAAFLOG thread:

    yguy says:

    June 3, 2010 at 1:51 pm  

    As to those few military officers who directly receive orders from the President, I didn’t say that they would be “legally obligated” to obey orders from a President who publicly states that he’s constitutionally ineligible.
    […]
    Rather, I made a statement about what I believed would happen…

    OK, but since officers are obligated to act only according to law, you’re implying either that they have a legal basis for continued obedience or that most such officers can be counted on to break the law.

    If the situation you posited were to occur, I have no doubt that our senior military leadership would receive sage advice from their senior legal advisors, including the Judge Advocates General and the legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    I invite you, or anyone, to construct a prima facie case in favor of those hypothetical officers continuing to respect the authority of an admittedly ineligible CiC. Until then, I cannot help but liken your pronouncements regarding the obligations of lower ranking officers to those of a mathematician who holds forth eloquently on the subject of tensor calculus but finds himself incapable of determining whether or not 1+1=3.

  70. avatar
    Scientist June 28, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    yguy: I invite you, or anyone, to construct a prima facie case in favor of those hypothetical officers continuing to respect the authority of an admittedly ineligible CiC

    The Constitution vests the authority to determine eligibility in the voters, the Electoral College and Congress. If they say he is eligible, then he is. Period. If new evidence arises that bears on the question it is up to Congress to decide what to do. There is NO role for military officers at any level in that process, beyond the vote they get to cast on the same basis as everyone else. Show me in the Constitution where the military is given ANY role in determining who the President is.

  71. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    yguy: The value of positing a possible scenario, however improbable, is that the response to it, which in this case presumably has the same logical underpinnings as Sullivan’s pronouncement that Obama’s eligibility is irrelevant to Lakin’s case, has the potential to expose flaws in those underpinnings, as it did in this instance.

    Um. In the exchange that I read, you ran head-first into some extremely solid underpinnings…

    yguy: I invite you, or anyone, to construct a prima facie case in favor of those hypothetical officers continuing to respect the authority of an admittedly ineligible CiC. Until then, I cannot help but liken your pronouncements regarding the obligations of lower ranking officers to those of a mathematician who holds forth eloquently on the subject of tensor calculus but finds himself incapable of determining whether or not 1+1=3.

    The president was vetted by the Constitutionally proscribed process and sworn into office – thus he is the legitimate president. If he says that he doesn’t meet the eligibility requirements but refuses to step down he is still the legitimate president unless and until he has been investigated, impeached and convicted by Congress. How can you honestly think that senior military commanders wouldn’t be obligated to follow any legal orders that he gave? In regard to your addition problem, 1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1. Remember, there are 3 kinds of mathematicians: those that can count and the other kind…

  72. avatar
    sfjeff June 28, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    “Sullivan failed to raise any objections to this post in the same CAAFLOG thread:”

    Except Sullivan did specifically tell you that you had misstated his position.

    And then you came here and posted the same statement which Sullivan had already told you that you had mistated.

    “And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so. ”

    Except he never said that- and he told you he didn’t say that. Yet you post here saying that he did.

    So…..are you lieing or are you mistaken?

    Even more to the point- were you making a deliberately misleading post? I think its clear that you did. You post was a clear attempt to portray Sullivan as stating a position he neither actually stated, or even agreed with entirely- and he had told you that.

    So….are you lieing or are you mistaken? I think the evidence is clear.

  73. avatar
    yguy June 28, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    sfjeff: And then you came here and posted the same statement which Sullivan had already told you that you had mistated.

    I did no such thing. In the post he objected to, I represented him as saying officers would be legally obligated to obey a CiC they knew was ineligible. In my reply to his objection I represented him as claiming ignorance on the question, and in this thread, I said he viewed it as an open question, either of which is substantially accurate.

  74. avatar
    NbC June 28, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    In my reply to his objection I represented him as claiming ignorance on the question, and in this thread, I said he viewed it as an open question, either of which is substantially accurate.

    Who are you trying to fool here?

  75. avatar
    NbC June 28, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    yguy: The value of positing a possible scenario, however improbable, is that the response to it, which in this case presumably has the same logical underpinnings as Sullivan’s pronouncement that Obama’s eligibility is irrelevant to Lakin’s case, has the potential to expose flaws in those underpinnings, as it did in this instance.

    It showed flaws in your arguments, if that was your goal but it showed no flaws in the arguments about eligibility and its relevance to Lakin’s case, which is NIL.

    Surely you could have learned this from 1) US v New, 2) the de facto officer doctrine. In fact, there is little doubt that even if a President were inadvertently sworn in while ineligible, that the Courts could address this issue.
    Such is our Constitution.

  76. avatar
    G June 28, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    Rickey, addressing yguy’s statements: Addressing a scenario which has no possibility of coming to pass is a waste of time. By the way, I too was looking for a link to Dwight Sullivan’s actual comments, because you make it appear that he raised the hypothetical question of Obama admitting that he is ineligible but refusing to resign. In fact, as the following exchange demonstrates, he was merely responding to a hypothetical which you raised:

    Good detective work, Rickey!

    Although I’m not surprised at all to find out that the entire conversation was originated by yguy and that he is the one who manufactured the whole hypothetical scenario in the first place.

    I believe its called Wagging the Dog.

    Fox News tends to use this tactic a lot. They will have someone like Hannity or Glenn Beck make up something completely outrageous and then their “news” shows will start reporting that “some people are saying that…”, when their own show people turn out to be those “some people” that started the false rumors in the first place.

    It is nothing but a cheap disinformation propaganda tactic and further evidence that yguy is nothing but an intentional troll with an agenda to mislead and spread false propaganda.

    Busted again, yguy. Go take your cheap con artist tricks somewhere else. They don’t work here.

  77. avatar
    Rickey June 28, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    yguy:

    No, that was a specious inference drawn by you – not that it matters, since he stipulated to it arguendo

    Except that is does matter, because the way you presented it made it appear as though it was something which had been on Sullivan’s mind. In fact, as we now know, he said that it is something which he has never researched.

    I said he viewed it as an open question

    But he never said that, and you know that he never said that. “Open question” suggests an issue which has not been resolved. All Sullivan said is that he has never looked into it, which means that he doesn’t know if it is an open question or if it is a resolved question. But it really is a non-issue, because it is so far-fetched that no one in the armed services has even given a thought to it.

  78. avatar
    Greg June 28, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    yguy, you have yet to make a prima facie case for why the officers should be allowed to disobey the direct orders of the acting commander in chief. Your so-called argument is simply that it is obvious.

    Do you understand the difference between void and voidable? If I sell a car to an individual ineligible to make a contract because he is too young, that contract is not void. It is voidable.

    Surely there are some analogous cases to this, somewhere. An individual is appointed to a federal agency which then issues rules. It is later discovered that the individual is ineligible for the appointment. What happens? Does it happen instantaneously, or only after due process? Has nothing similar ever happened in a corporation?

    The Constitution obviously does not say anything about what happens if it is learned after an election, its certification, and the swearing in of the President, that the President is ineligible for the office. So, go ahead and make your case. Show me how it is not an open question.

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Greg: What if the President “admits” he’s ineligible, but he’s wrong?

    The Obama Campaign “admitted” (by showing a FactCheck.org statement on the Fight the Smears web site) that he was born a dual citizen of the US and the UK and Colonies — and that may not actually be the case because of his father’s previous marriage.

    I wouldn’t take President Obama as the last word on his own eligibility.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    misha: If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a trolley car.

    Did you ever call her a taxi?

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2010 at 11:46 pm #

    katahdin: But I heard that a little golden halo encircled his head. Any truth to that?

    I am prepared to swear in court under oath that I did not see a golden halo when he was born.

  82. avatar
    misha June 29, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Did you ever call her a taxi?

    No, but I called her Nana.

  83. avatar
    brygenon June 29, 2010 at 3:47 am #

    Another note on the three judges that will decide the Kerchner v. Obama appeal: Two of them, Sloviter and Hardiman, were on the three-judge panel that decided the Berg v. Obama appeal.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Berg-Obama-Appeal-Decision.pdf

  84. avatar
    G June 29, 2010 at 4:01 am #

    brygenon: Another note on the three judges that will decide the Kerchner v. Obama appeal: Two of them, Sloviter and Hardiman, were on the three-judge panel that decided the Berg v. Obama appeal.http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Berg-Obama-Appeal-Decision.pdf

    Thanks again for the relevant info. Good to know!

  85. avatar
    Majority Will June 29, 2010 at 8:40 am #

    Re: yguy the intentional troll

    “It is nothing but a cheap disinformation propaganda tactic and further evidence that yguy is nothing but an intentional troll with an agenda to mislead and spread false propaganda.

    Busted again, yguy. Go take your cheap con artist tricks somewhere else. They don’t work here.”

    Well stated.

  86. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    Rickey:
    “Open question” suggests an issue which has not been resolved.

    If Sullivan wants to come over here and object to my saying here what he didn’t object to my implying on his own site that’s his affair…but your pharisaical gnat-straining doesn’t interest me.

  87. avatar
    Greg June 29, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    yguy: but your pharisaical gnat-straining doesn’t interest me.

    There goes the irony meter again.

  88. avatar
    Passerby June 29, 2010 at 10:30 am #

    yguy: In my reply to his objection I represented him as claiming ignorance on the question, and in this thread, I said he viewed it as an open question, either of which is substantially accurate.

    No, they’re not. Those are two completely different things. He said that he, personally, does not know the answer to the question. “It’s an open question” would mean that no one knows the answer to the question. Which he did not say.

  89. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    Greg: If I sell a car to an individual ineligible to make a contract because he is too young, that contract is not void. It is voidable.

    There is no position of trust involved, so this gets us nowhere.

    Surely there are some analogous cases to this, somewhere.

    Then I leave it to you to cite one.

    An individual is appointed to a federal agency which then issues rules. It is later discovered that the individual is ineligible for the appointment. What happens?

    I don’t know, but there are plenty of federal agents whose actions have little or no impact on national security. Not so the POTUS.

    The Constitution obviously does not say anything about what happens if it is learned after an election, its certification, and the swearing in of the President, that the President is ineligible for the office. So, go ahead and make your case.

    Already have.

  90. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    Passerby:
    “It’s an open question” would mean that no one knows the answer to the question. Which he did not say.

    Then let him, or anyone, present evidence that anyone knows the answer – anyone besides me, that is. 🙂

  91. avatar
    Passerby June 29, 2010 at 10:48 am #

    But why should he? He expressed no opinion on whether or not the question is, in fact, an open one, legally. He doesn’t know if it is or not. You’re the one claiming to know.

    How do you know?

  92. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 29, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    yguy: Then let him, or anyone, present evidence that anyone knows the answer – anyone besides me, that is.

    Sorry yguy but from your past history here you don’t seem to know the answer to any questions

  93. avatar
    Rickey June 29, 2010 at 11:01 am #

    yguy:
    If Sullivan wants to come over here and object to my saying here what he didn’t object to my implying on his own site that’s his affair…but your pharisaical gnat-straining doesn’t interest me.

    Sullivan has already chastised you once for misrepresenting what he said.

    It’s time that you learned that self-righteousness and arrogance are no substitutes for logic, at least not on this blog..

    I would suggest that the fact that Sullivan never followed up on researching your hypothetical is a strong indicator that he feels it would be a waste of his time. You might as well ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to work up a strategy to defend us in the event of an invasion by Mars.

  94. avatar
    Greg June 29, 2010 at 11:07 am #

    yguy: Then I leave it to you to cite one.

    I think I’ll leave making your case to you.

    Tell us what you believe, and why?

    Be specific. We know there’s an eligibility clause, but why does the statement of the President that he is ineligible make his presidency void, not voidable. If it’s void, then was it void from the start? If so, who is President? Pelosi or McCain?

    What if the case is not so clear? What if the President says he thinks he might be ineligible, but there is bona fide doubt? Does the army follow his orders then?

    Already have.

    Right…I remember, it’s obvious. Yeah, great argument there. You’ve proven only that there is an eligibility clause. You haven’t said a thing about why that should make Obama’s presidency void, and why it should be void at the instant the President acknowledges it, not later when Congress confirms it and impeaches him.

    There is no position of trust involved, so this gets us nowhere.

    What does this mean?

    Are you saying there’s no position of trust involved in contracting? Untrue. Both parties trust the other to live up to the terms of the contract. Both parties trust the other to have entered into the contract with the ability to make a legal and binding contract. And built into every contract is an implied term of good faith and fair dealing.

    I don’t know, but there are plenty of federal agents whose actions have little or no impact on national security.

    There are plenty that do, though. What if the head of the CIA comes into the office one day and says, “I’m ineligible to serve in the position, but I’m going to run the agency until my replacement can be found.” Do his subordinates disobey his orders?

    I’m asking you to make your case, yguy.

    Passerby“It’s an open question” would mean that no one knows the answer to the question. Which he did not say.

    yguyThen let him, or anyone, present evidence that anyone knows the answer – anyone besides me, that is.

    Wouldn’t showing evidence that someone knows the answer disprove the premise that no one knows the answer?

    Why don’t you prove that your answer is the one that the courts will obviously take.

    C’mon, in your hypothetical, you’re telling the officers that it is illegal to follow the orders of Obama. That it’s obvious that no one would follow Obama’s orders.

    Or, maybe you’re not. You always claim that we’re misrepresenting your point. But, then you refuse to clarify your point.

    Tell us what you believe and be specific.

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 29, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    Rickey: You might as well ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to work up a strategy to defend us in the event of an invasion by Mars.

    You don’t think they have a contingency plan for alien invasion?

  96. avatar
    Majority Will June 29, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    “Or, maybe you’re not. You always claim that we’re misrepresenting your point. But, then you refuse to clarify your point.

    Tell us what you believe and be specific.”

    That would be in direct violation of the Birther Trolls Code of Misdirection, Ignorance and Outright Lies™.

  97. avatar
    Majority Will June 29, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You don’t think they have a contingency plan for alien invasion?

    There is a list of the names and cell phone numbers of the best yodelers in the world in a drawer in the President’s desk in the Oval Office.

  98. avatar
    sfjeff June 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    “And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so”

    I just want to repeat once more- Dwight Sullivan didn’t ‘opine’ that, and specifically chastised you for putting words in his mouth. This from someone who called Obama a habitual liar.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 29, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    sfjeff: “And where one Dwight Sullivan has opined that if Obama admitted publicly that he was ineligible and yet refused to resign, it would be an open question as to whether the generals who report to him could legally continue to do so”I just want to repeat once more- Dwight Sullivan didn’t opine’ that, and specifically chastised you for putting words in his mouth. This from someone who called Obama a habitual liar.

    And who consistently claims that factcheck dissembles the truth without being able to show a single instance of it

  100. avatar
    nbC June 29, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    Passerby: But why should he? He expressed no opinion on whether or not the question is, in fact, an open one, legally. He doesn’t know if it is or not. You’re the one claiming to know.
    How do you know?

    Excellent question and why is he making claims about others which do not hold up under closer scrutiny?

  101. avatar
    nbC June 29, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    Greg: yguy: Then I leave it to you to cite one.

    I think I’ll leave making your case to you.

    But but… It’s one thing to quote mine, it’s another to make a coherent case.

  102. avatar
    Rickey June 29, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    Majority Will:
    There is a list of the names and cell phone numbers of the best yodelers in the world in a drawer in the President’s desk in the Oval Office.

    Yes, but there is only one Slim Whitman.

  103. avatar
    G June 29, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    Rickey:
    Yes, but there is only one Slim Whitman.

    *ack* *ack*…*ack* *ack* *ack* *ack*…<> 😉

  104. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 2:35 pm #

    Rickey:
    It’s time that you learned that self-righteousness and arrogance are no substitutes for logic, at least not on this blog..

    Yer a riot, dude. 🙂

  105. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    Greg:
    I think I’ll leave making your case to you.

    I didn’t claim there must be an analogous case on record, you did.

    If it’s void, then was it void from the start?

    Yes.

    If so, who is President?

    I’d say Biden, per 25AC1.

    You haven’t said a thing about why that should make Obama’s presidency void, and why it should be void at the instant the President acknowledges it, not later when Congress confirms it and impeaches him.

    Unfortunately the site rules constrain me from addressing this drivel with the respect it deserves, so I’ll content myself with pointing out that it’s absolute baloney and you know it.

    What does this mean?

    It means no party is authorized to act on behalf of another party.

    What if the head of the CIA comes into the office one day and says, “I’m ineligible to serve in the position, but I’m going to run the agency until my replacement can be found.” Do his subordinates disobey his orders?

    I should think so.

    Wouldn’t showing evidence that someone knows the answer disprove the premise that no one knows the answer?

    You’re not open to that kind of evidence.

    Why don’t you prove that your answer is the one that the courts will obviously take.

    Because I have made no claim about what answer “the courts will obviously take”, obviously.

    C’mon, in your hypothetical, you’re telling the officers that it is illegal to follow the orders of Obama. That it’s obvious that no one would follow Obama’s orders.
    Or, maybe you’re not.

    For once you got something right: I’m saying it’s obvious that in that situation no one SHOULD follow his orders.

    You always claim that we’re misrepresenting your point.

    No, I only claim that when it’s true. That it’s true so often is hardly my problem.

  106. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    Passerby: How do you know?

    Wrong question. The right question is how anyone conversant with the facts could NOT know; and the answer is that nobody wants to look at the possibility that the de facto officer doctrine is inadequate to task of justly addressing the Lakin case.

  107. avatar
    Greg June 29, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    So, your position is that no one SHOULD follow Obama’s orders. Further, you think this is so obvious that it cannot be called an open question. Is that also true?

    To support these claims, you can point to no court cases. You can point to no analogous case in the entire canon of law (presumably in any country in the history of the world). When pressed to explain a simple facet of your theory, that Obama’s ineligibility, in this hypothetical only self-professed, makes his Presidency void back to its genesis and his orders are void instantly without even the benefit of a Senate hearing, you fall back on insult.

    So, the entire sum of your argument, its entire width and bredth is that you believe it to be obvious.

    Specifically, to your point about my drivel. You haven’t answered my question about the President who claims to be ineligible, but isn’t. Obviously, there is some benefit to having a formal impeachment hearing, to at least regularize the process and ensure that the President is correct in his assessment. It’s not like he resigned in my variant of your hypothetical.

  108. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 29, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    yguy posted:

    [Greg]: “You always claim that we’re misrepresenting your point.”

    [yguy]: “No, I only claim that when it’s true. That it’s true so often is hardly my problem.”

    Did you ever consider that the frequency with which your arguments are misrepresented is an indication that you are not expressing them clearly?

    yguy: nobody wants to look at the possibility that the de facto officer doctrine is inadequate to task of justly addressing the Lakin case.

    Would you care to give any justification that this is the case* or do you just want to continue making unsupported statements that you can’t back up?

    *Either that the de facto officer doctrine is inadequate to deal with soon-to-be-mister Lakin or that anyone is avoiding looking at that possibility.

  109. avatar
    richCares June 29, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    YGUY: “…de facto officer doctrine is inadequate to task of justly addressing the Lakin case”
    .
    Quick, better tell Lakin else he is gong down.
    .
    General Petraeus is following his orders from Obama and serving his country, is it too much for Lakin to do the same. I thought going AWOL was a sign of a traitor.
    .
    Maybe Lakin can call Gen. Petraeus as a witness, that would be neat! Would that put a smile on your face?

  110. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 29, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    Greg: So, your position is that no one SHOULD follow Obama’s orders. Further, you think this is so obvious that it cannot be called an open question. Is that also true?To support these claims, you can point to no court cases. You can point to no analogous case in the entire canon of law (presumably in any country in the history of the world). When pressed to explain a simple facet of your theory, that Obama’s ineligibility, in this hypothetical only self-professed, makes his Presidency void back to its genesis and his orders are void instantly without even the benefit of a Senate hearing, you fall back on insult. So, the entire sum of your argument, its entire width and bredth is that you believe it to be obvious. Specifically, to your point about my drivel. You haven’t answered my question about the President who claims to be ineligible, but isn’t. Obviously, there is some benefit to having a formal impeachment hearing, to at least regularize the process and ensure that the President is correct in his assessment. It’s not like he resigned in my variant of your hypothetical.

    So according to Yguy the entire federal government would shut down because of a problem with the CIC. He must think the founding fathers to be absolutely stupid.

    Using the earlier example according to yguy if the head of the CIA was inelligible then all intelligence gathering would cease because even if orders didn’t come from the Director of the CIA ultimately somehow they originated from him. Yguy’s idea of how our government works is rather counterproductive

  111. avatar
    dp June 29, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    yguy:
    Wrong question. The right question is how anyone conversant with the facts could NOT know; and the answer is that nobody wants to look at the possibility that the de facto officer doctrine is inadequate to task of justly addressing the Lakin case.

    That would be because the de facto officer doctrine is not, in fact, inadequate to the Lakin case. The precedents involved are simple and obvious. It’s fine to have a personal opinion that is at odds with relevant legal precedent and ruling authority, but expecting people to treat that opinion as anything other than bar room chatter is unrealistic.

  112. avatar
    Bovril June 29, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    Yguy

    Now, not to put too fine a point on what I’m sure is already a pointy head, you need to understand the meaning and differences between

    Fact
    Hearsay
    Opinion
    Belief
    Supposition
    Prejudice

    Your lonely little thought experiment is exactly that, a puerile flight of fancy with no grounding in the real world of observable facts.

    So what if you want to write a book about the Demon Usurper and his Nefarious Birth Certificate.

    The facts are and remain

    Obama was born in Hawai’i as evidenced by facts in law, sealed documentation (document with a seal), plain, unambiguous supporting statements, valid if provided in court, from the custodian of the root records

    There is not and never has been any “hiding” of the facts of Obama’s father nationality

    Vattel counts for F* all in constitutional law outside of some marginal attributation on International not Municipal law

    Vattel counts for F* all squared about nationality in the USA

    The Law and Constitutional interpretation going back to the Founding Fathers states that outside of 2 very specific and limited exceptions (neither of which Obama falls into) if a child is born in the USA he/she is a full NBC.

    The phrase Natural and Native born (in the context of citizenship) has always been seen in the eyes of the law as interchangeable and equal.

    Obama was voted into office by a majority of voters (the people who voted)

    Obama won the greatest number of Electoral College votes

    Obama was confirmed into the position of President via all the Constitutional mechanisms in place

    At no time did the pre-requisite Senator and Congressman raise questions about the legitimacy of Obama during the period Constitutionally set.

    The only methods for removal of a standing president are via the mechanisms within the Constitution and solely via Congress.

    To quote another cortically challenged Birfer….”Here endeth the lesson”

  113. avatar
    ellid June 29, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Rickey:
    Yes, but there is only one Slim Whitman.

    Y’know, I was in college back when those “Incomparable Master of Song” Slim Whitman commercials first showed up. A local wag attempted to draft him to play the Spring Concert at the University of Massachusetts, which would have gone over oh so well….

  114. avatar
    Passerby June 29, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    yguy:

    Greg: Why don’t you prove that your answer is the one that the courts will obviously take.
    Yguy: Because I have made no claim about what answer “the courts will obviously take”, obviously.
    Greg: C’mon, in your hypothetical, you’re telling the officers that it is illegal to follow the orders of Obama. That it’s obvious that no one would follow Obama’s orders.
    Or, maybe you’re not.
    Yguy: For once you got something right: I’m saying it’s obvious that in that situation no one SHOULD follow his orders.

    This exchange has got me wondering. It seems to me that what you’re saying is that you’re not really interested in the legalities of it at all. When you say no one SHOULD follow his orders, are you talking about something else? Do you mean, maybe, that regardless of what the law says, Obama should be disobeyed as a matter of morality or honor? Or something else?

    I’m honestly trying to understand you here.

  115. avatar
    DCH June 29, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    So how exactly would Obama prove he was born outside of the United States?

    His government provided documentation indicates he was born in Hawaii (COLB), and the DoH and governor of Hawaii has categorically confirmed the fact, he has no naturalization papers, and a US passport.

    LOL

  116. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 5:11 pm #

    Passerby:
    It seems to me that what you’re saying is that you’re not really interested in the legalities of it at all.

    On the contrary, as far as this discussion goes, I’m not interested in anything else.

    I’m honestly trying to understand you here.

    Then all you need do is consider whether, if Pelosi ordered Petraeus to carpet bomb Tehran, he ought to carry out that order. If you answer in the negative on the grounds that Pelosi has no legal authority to give such an order, it should be plain that a nominal CiC who is constitutionally ineligible is similarly lacking such authority.

  117. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 29, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    yguy: Then all you need do is consider whether, if Pelosi ordered Petraeus to carpet bomb Tehran, he ought to carry out that order. If you answer in the negative on the grounds that Pelosi has no legal authority to give such an order, it should be plain that a nominal CiC who is constitutionally ineligible is similarly lacking such authority.

    You really don’t understand the void vs. voidable issue, do you? President Obama (having been vetted as eligible by the appropriate process) can lawfully exercise the powers of the office of CinC and give orders which must be lawfully obeyed (an order to carpet bomb Tehran may or may not be an example of a legal order depending on the circumstances), i.e. the president’s authority is currently valid and (presumably) un-voidable. If a great deal of incriminating evidence magically turned up overnight (for the sake of argument, let’s say admissible evidence corroborating all of the birther’s unsupported statements – even the contradictory ones ;-)), then the president’s eligibility would be instantly voidable but not voided (his authority would continue to be valid). If his authority were voided immediately, this would violate the rights of due process and innocence until guilt is proven. Thus his authority would continue unless and until he was convicted of an impeachable offense by Congress, which would void his authority immediately but not necessarily retroactively. In the meantime, military officers would still be required to follow his orders and could be rightly prosecuted for failing to do so.

    It is interesting to note how little concern you have for the processes specified by the Constitution considering the amount of time birthers like you spend saying that all they care about is the Constitution. Thank you for the textbook example of hypocrisy.

  118. avatar
    dp June 29, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    yguy: On the contrary, as far as this discussion goes, I’m not interested in anything else.Then all you need do is consider whether, if Pelosi ordered Petraeus to carpet bomb Tehran, he ought to carry out that order. If you answer in the negative on the grounds that Pelosi has no legal authority to give such an order, it should be plain that a nominal CiC who is constitutionally ineligible is similarly lacking such authority.

    That’s stupid.

    Having never run for the office of President, let alone been elected, let laone laid claim to the office, Pelosi has no presumption that she is, in fact, the President. If you use that tiny little brain of yours, you can probably even locate on the Internet the official title of the job she actually does have.

    Obama was elected President. The Constitutional process to certify that election was followed. All the relevant government entities have recognized him as President. To sane people who can read, that means the de facto officer doctrine covers his actions as President. And it does so until such time as someone other than a bunch of hyperventilating malcontents who don’t even understand what evidence is demonstrates Obame was not eligible to the satisfaction of relevant government entities.

    Baseless, whining “grasp at anything” speculation does not constitute evidence. That’s why no one who matters listens to the birthers.

  119. avatar
    Scientist June 29, 2010 at 5:48 pm #

    yguy isn’t just saying that the military CAN disobey orders from an ineligible President (or one who might, possibly, maybe, who knows? be ineligible using birfer logic), but that they MUST disobey orders, even if those orders are entirely reasonable. Let’s say Canada masses troops along the border. Obama says, “Repel the attack”. In yguy world the army must disobey. Get ready to watch hockey every Saturday night and drink Molson’s (in case you don’t already).

    yguy’s interesting “legal theories” do provide a simple way to resolve the Lakin situation. Simply have the President issue a special order to Lakin that he should NOT deploy to Afghanistan. He would have no choice but to be there ASAP. While Obama is at it, he could order Lakin to accepy his pay, thus saving the taxpayers some money.

  120. avatar
    Scientist June 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Everything you said is clear and logical and completely suppiryed by the facts. Have you considered going into science?

  121. avatar
    Passerby June 29, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    yguy: It seems to me that what you’re saying is that you’re not really interested in the legalities of it at all.

    On the contrary, as far as this discussion goes, I’m not interested in anything else.

    Okay, so that was a dead end. So: it’s obvious that it would be illegal for Petraeus to obey an order Obama gave. But it’s not obvious that the courts would rule that way. Is that it?

    (As a side note: is there a difference between what a law says and what the courts say the law says? Philosophically, yes. As a practical matter, probably not. At least until someone else comes up with a compelling argument about why it should be reconsidered. Eh, I have a fondness for questions like that. Any legal philosophers around?)

    As far as your Pelosi example, all I would say is that there are enough differences in the two situations–Pelosi giving the order, and Obama giving the order if he were known to be ineligible–to make it not obvious that the conclusion in one would hold for the other. Others have covered the differences, so I won’t.

    Note that my claim is weaker than theirs, though. I’m not claiming that they would be (or wouldn’t be) legally obliged to obey Obama, Just that it’s not obvious

  122. avatar
    Passerby June 29, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    Passerby: Just that it’s not obvious

    …. not obvious that they shouldn’t.

    That was what that was supposed to say.

  123. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    Passerby:
    Okay, so that was a dead end. So: it’s obvious that it would be illegal for Petraeus to obey an order [an ineligible CiC] gave. But it’s not obvious that the courts would rule that way. Is that it?

    Yes.

    As a side note: is there a difference between what a law says and what the courts say the law says?

    Constitutionally speaking, definitely, since the power to make federal law is reserved to Congress, and the power to amend the Constitution to the states. Otherwise, unconstitutional court rulings would be a means of amending the Constitution.

    As far as your Pelosi example, all I would say is that there are enough differences in the two situations–Pelosi giving the order, and Obama giving the order if he were known to be ineligible–to make it not obvious that the conclusion in one would hold for the other.

    Would you care to specify what differences allow for the possibility that an ineligible CiC has legal authority to command the Armed Forces?

  124. avatar
    sfjeff June 29, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

    “an ineligible CiC has legal authority to command the Armed Forces?”

    Until a CIC has been legally determined to be ineligible, and has been subsequently impeached he is the Commander in Chief. Very simple, very constitutional.

    What body is entitled to make the determination that he is ineligible? Congress of course.

    No you pose the question- what if he announced that he was ineligible. Does that mean we must bypass legal remedies? That we should ignore the Constitution? Of course not. Perhaps the CIC doesn’t know the correct facts, or doesn’t understand the correct law, or perhaps is temporarily mentally unstable. This is the reason why in a legal society we follow legal remedies.

    Congress would have every right to intiate an investigation into whether the President was eligible, and could impeach him if they thought it was warrented. If the President was thought to be mentally incompacitated, there is a mechanism for that to- all in the Constitution.

    None of these include the Military deciding whether to obey orders given by its superiors, or directly from the CIC. Military deciding on when to obey Civilian governments is a BAD thing

  125. avatar
    Scientist June 29, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    yguy: Would you care to specify what differences allow for the possibility that an ineligible CiC has legal authority to command the Armed Forces?

    Here is the difference:

    The President has been RULED ELIGIBLE BY THE BODIES DESIGNATED TO MAKE THAT RULING (the electorate, the Electoral College and Congress). New facts of any nature whatsoever don’t change that ruling. They may cause the only one of those bodies with the power to act to remove the President (Congress) to do so, or not, as they decide. Either way, he remains in office untill they act. He retains all of his powers as there are no partial Presidents.

    Speaker Pelosi has never been elevated to the Presidency by any competent body. In the event of death/diability of both the President and Vice President, she would accede to the Presidency and then she would command the armed forces..

    What you continually ignore is that some body (actually a combination thereof) decides on presidential eligibility, NOT YOU. They use the Constitution as a guide, but ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO INTERPRET IT THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE.

    I really don’t like shouting, but you are impervious to normal speech.

  126. avatar
    Majority Will June 29, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    Scientist:
    Here is the difference:The President has been RULED ELIGIBLE BY THE BODIES DESIGNATED TO MAKE THAT RULING (the electorate, the Electoral College and Congress).New facts of any nature whatsoever don’t change that ruling.They may cause the only one of those bodies with the power to act to remove the President (Congress) to do so, or not, as they decide.Either way, he remains in office untill they act.He retains all of his powers as there are no partial Presidents.Speaker Pelosi has never been elevated to the Presidency by any competent body.In the event of death/diability of both the President and Vice President, she would accede to the Presidency and then she would command the armed forces..What you continually ignore is that some body (actually a combination thereof) decides on presidential eligibility, NOT YOU.They use the Constitution as a guide, but ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO INTERPRET IT THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE.I really don’t like shouting, but you are impervious to normal speech.

    Well put. The ethos of birtherism is wishful thinking.

    Truly pathetic.

  127. avatar
    nbc June 29, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    yguy: Wrong question. The right question is how anyone conversant with the facts could NOT know; and the answer is that nobody wants to look at the possibility that the de facto officer doctrine is inadequate to task of justly addressing the Lakin case.

    Yawn… Is that what explains your rhetoric? Lakin’s case is simple: he refused to obey a legal direct order from his commander, the status of the eligibility of the President has no relevance to the legality of the direct order. See US v New.

    The de facto officer doctrine is quite sufficient to deal with Lakin’s musings.

  128. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    sfjeff:Until a CIC has been legally determined to be ineligible, and has been subsequently impeached he is the Commander in Chief. Very simple,

    To be sure.

    very constitutional.

    One out of two is pretty crappy.

    What body is entitled to make the determination that he is ineligible? Congress of course.

    I don’t know where you’re getting that, but it’s not from the Constitution.

  129. avatar
    Scientist June 29, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    yguy: What body is entitled to make the determination that he is ineligible? Congress of course.
    I don’t know where you’re getting that, but it’s not from the Constitution.

    None other is even mentioned. Certainly not the Joint Chiefs. yguy doesn’t appear in the Constitution. Nor Lakin. No mention of Taitz, Donofrio or Apuzzo anywhere in the Constitution.

    So Congress it is. Sorry for you.

  130. avatar
    sfjeff June 29, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    Hah- Yguy- i note that once again you cherry pick what you respond to- and respond incompletely even then.

    Considering that I am every much the Constitutional authority that you are, i will say it is clear to me that only Congress has the authority to remove a sitting President, and only through the impeachment process. And that the President is the CIC up to and until he is removed from office.

    What you ignore of course is that you are advocating the Military deciding when to obey Civilian authority. That is the road to Military dictatorships and the end of our rule of law. I am always amazed at how people like yourself promote violating the Constitution to protect it..

  131. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 29, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    Scientist: Slartibartfast: Everything you said is clear and logical and completely suppiryed by the facts.Have you considered going into science?

    I never really considered going into science, I always just sort of assumed that science is where I would end up…

  132. avatar
    Majority Will June 29, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    sfjeff: Hah- Yguy- i note that once again you cherry pick what you respond to- and respond incompletely even then.
    Considering that I am every much the Constitutional authority that you are, i will say it is clear to me that only Congress has the authority to remove a sitting President, and only through the impeachment process. And that the President is the CIC up to and until he is removed from office.What you ignore of course is that you are advocating the Military deciding when to obey Civilian authority. That is the road to Military dictatorships and the end of our rule of law. I am always amazed at how people like yourself promote violating the Constitution to protect it..

    Advocating a military coup d’état is near or at the top of the list as Un-American.

  133. avatar
    yguy June 29, 2010 at 9:27 pm #

    sfjeff: only Congress has the authority to remove a sitting President,

    Which under the Constitution an ineligible person is not, obviously.

    you are advocating the Military deciding when to obey Civilian authority.

    No, I’m advocating that military personnel obey their oath of office, which means obeying the Constitution, which means obeying orders only from people who are constitutionally authorized to give them.

    That is the road to Military dictatorships and the end of our rule of law.

    Get real. You’re the one saying the law doesn’t matter if enough of the right people say it doesn’t.

  134. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- June 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    yguy: Which under the Constitution an ineligible person is not, obviously.

    And the State of Hawaii, forty-nine other boards of elections, the Electoral College, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court have all certified President Obama’s eligibility.

    Game, set, on to Congress for the match.

  135. avatar
    Majority Will June 29, 2010 at 9:57 pm #

    Holy crap, birthers are dense.

  136. avatar
    dp June 29, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

    Get real. You’re the one saying the law doesn’t matter if enough of the right people say it doesn’t.

    No, I believe people are saying that a bunch of fools braying about the boogie men in their closets don’t constitute actionable evidence of anything. That what such fools think is irrelevant since their self-serving, borderline hysterical psychological needs have rendered them irrelevant to the processes by which rational people determine whether someone legally holds an office or not.

    Just because you personally imagine a President isn’t qualified doesn’t make it so. Nor does it make your silliness something rational people are obligated to take seriously in the least. For all practical intents and purposes, you’re simply one of those people who believes the moon landings were fake.

    And I was in the military and took that oath. I was sane, however, so I understood that I was simply pledging allegiance to our form of government as opposed to one man or office. At no time did I or any of my sane colleagues labor under the delusion that taking that oath had rendered us individual Supreme Court tribunals empowered to take issue with what the proper civilian authorities had determined was or was not Constitutional. Any officer who personally demands to vet an elected President certified by the proper Electoral Vote in Congress and unquestioned by the Judiciary Branch is not upholding his/her oath and fully deserves the court-martial to which he/she will be appropriately subjected.

  137. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 29, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    yguy posted:

    [sfjeff]: “only Congress has the authority to remove a sitting President,”

    [yguy] “Which under the Constitution an ineligible person is not, obviously.”

    The president has, in fact, been declared to be eligible by the relevant process (the voters, the electoral college, Congress and the chief justice of the SCOTUS in addition to the people who signed affidavits attesting to his eligibility) i.e. he is the sitting president both in fact and in law. It is possible (although highly unlikely) that due to error or fraud the president’s eligibility was improperly certified, but that can only be determined by the appropriate process (investigation, impeachment and conviction by Congress or incapacity vote by the cabinet). Since the president has been established as legitimate and the military is thus currently obligated to follow his (legal) orders, at what point do you think that this obligation ends if not upon Constitutionally described actions? Your hypocrisy in just following what you think the Constitution says and only when you want to makes your arguments irrational and laughable.

    [sfjeff]: “you are advocating the Military deciding when to obey Civilian authority.”

    [yguy]: “No, I’m advocating that military personnel obey their oath of office, which means obeying the Constitution, which means obeying orders only from people who are constitutionally authorized to give them.”

    The president is Constitutionally authorized to give orders at present even if there was fraud or error in the process of his certification of eligibility. Any military officer’s oath requires them to obey the orders of the president until due process of law says otherwise. Why are you so against following the obvious dictates of the law in this case?

    [sfjeff]: “That is the road to Military dictatorships and the end of our rule of law.”

    [yguy]: “Get real. You’re the one saying the law doesn’t matter if enough of the right people say it doesn’t.”

    Sorry yguy, but you’re the only one who is willfully ignoring the Constitution and the law here – we’re all saying that the law should be followed: The president is the legitimate CinC until he is removed in accordance to the Constitution. What exactly do you think is wrong about following the Constitution?

  138. avatar
    richCares June 29, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    Majority Will says “Holy crap, birthers are dense.”
    .
    if you want to experience dense then visit conservapedia.com. the conservative web site. Really really dense. Don’t have a coffee cup in your hand. (don’t blame me if your dosed your keyboiard)
    .
    If you want to flunk science then use conservapedia as a reference.

  139. avatar
    Majority Will June 29, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    richCares: Majority Will says “Holy crap, birthers are dense.”
    .
    if you want to experience dense then visit conservapedia.com. the conservative web site. Really really dense. Don’t have a coffee cup in your hand. (don’t blame me if your dosed your keyboiard)
    .
    If you want to flunk science then use conservapedia as a reference.

    Yeah, I saw that awhile back. I wouldn’t have believed that donkeys crossbred with humans could start a website.

  140. avatar
    misha June 29, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    Majority Will: I wouldn’t have believed that donkeys crossbred with humans could start a website.

    Why not? They’re already on radio and television. Limbaugh is clearly a centaur.

  141. avatar
    Majority Will June 29, 2010 at 11:08 pm #

    R

    misha:
    Why not? They’re already on radio and television. Limbaugh is clearly a centaur.

    Rush is a $400 million dollar example that the U.S. has serious problems.

  142. avatar
    misha June 29, 2010 at 11:19 pm #

    Majority Will: RRush is a $400 million dollar example that the U.S. has serious problems.

    Limbaugh was squawking on his show about his NYC income tax bill. This from someone who dropped $450K on a custom Mercedes. Sorry, it’s a Maybach.

    Yes, you read right: $450,000 for a CAR.

  143. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 29, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    richCares: Majority Will says “Holy crap, birthers are dense.”
    .
    if you want to experience dense then visit conservapedia.com. the conservative web site. Really really dense. Don’t have a coffee cup in your hand. (don’t blame me if your dosed your keyboiard)
    .
    If you want to flunk science then use conservapedia as a reference.

    Yeah anything that came out of Phyllis Schiafly is obviously dense. Its so bad that even long time moderators think the site is a sham. Andy Schiaffly always overrules everyone with his stupidity. They’re so nuts that they’re currently rewriting the bible to take out all the “liberal parts” like when jesus helped the poor and downtrodden

  144. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 29, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    misha:
    Limbaugh was squawking on his show about his NYC income tax bill. This from someone who dropped $450K on a custom Mercedes. Sorry, it’s a Maybach.Yes, you read right: $450,000 for a CAR.

    Look at the penthouse he has for sale
    http://www.luxist.com/2010/03/02/rush-limbaughs-gaudy-nyc-penthouse-for-sale-at-13-95-million/

    ugly

  145. avatar
    misha June 30, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Look at the penthouse he has for sale

    Which proves money cannot buy taste.

  146. avatar
    Ellid June 30, 2010 at 7:49 am #

    I do not believe for one nanosecond that Rush Limbaugh has ever slept in that place. It’s much too clean and foofy.

  147. avatar
    Sef June 30, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    bob: Apuzzo’s unintentionally hilarious latest musing.

    I LUV Mario’s new photo of himself with the blue hat.