Does the Military care about the Constitution?

Print This Article


Are today's military members loyal to the Constitution of the United States, or has it become all about a paycheck?

contributed by Joe E. Sheldon

From: Joe E. Sheldon
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 9:58 AM
Subject: Your recent ruling memorandum on the defense’s evidence/witness request.

The first thing to recognize is that you swore an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution in your military capacity.

By proffering your ruling in the subject memorandum, you have, very simply, broken that oath.  Please re-read the United States Constitution since you seem not to have done so recently – if at all.   Especially pertinent is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 ,which specifies, using mandatory language, that to be President a person must among other things be a “natural borm Citizen” of this country.

Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor anyone else has shown that the man meets that requirement (setting aside the other two in the Article).  He has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies.  The man is putatively your Commander-in-Chief and certainly, that means if he is not legally that, then your actions in helping to shield him grossly violate the black letter law of our country, as does his promulgation of orders, funding, etc. for all of the military – you included.  His waging of war (whether declared or undeclared) is not valid if he is not legally eligible to hold the office, and much of that sort of reasoning, along with the pretense of underlings such as you in carrying out all orders from on high without question, is what the Nuremberg Trials were all about after World War II.  Perhaps you are too young to remember those, but I am not.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 32 Investigation, paragraph 1, reads:

“(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.”

Paragraphs 5 and 6 in your memorandum are patent nonsense.

In paragraph 5, you speak of “facially proper” orders given to the defendant as though that were some inarguable justification for your rulings.  It is not, since, as should be obvious to you, the orders given to the defendants at Nuremberg were also “facially proper,” but despite that, several of those being tried were executed.  You should keep that in mind as you seek to violate the mandatory language for Presidential eligibility in the Constitution.  It does not say the man SHOULD BE but rather that he SHALL BE a “natural born Citizen,” which is a particular term of art in that document.  In the military legal proceeding at hand, you are not being asked to prove or disprove the Constitutional eligibility of the putative President, but merely that evidence be gathered and presented to the court on that matter.

For whatever reason (and please do not regurgitate paragraphs 5 and 6, as they are pathetically weak), you have elected to join with the Legislative Branch of the Government in actually attacking the Constitution which you swore an oath to defend.  Not only does that fly in the face of common sense, it is shameful in the extreme.  By advocating the position in your memo, you are not at all neutral but are siding with those who say “the Constitution be damned” while in fact all you are being asked to do is NOT make the sort of Constitutional ruling you presume to with your ruling.  The Supreme Court might do so, but the military certainly cannot.  Your position should be to help gather the evidence and witnesses rather than to help the Legislative Branch hide them…and as a result of your ruling, you join in that very refutation and usurpation of the law of this country that is higher than any military court, whether you believe that or not!

Your “odd” statement in paragraph 6 making a unilateral (and erroneous) ruling on the role Congress may or may not play in any eligibility determination is paltry indeed and quite transparent as to its intent.  Obama has been sued prior to his (presumably) legally becoming President since he had never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold that office.  Your pretense that somehow Congress could impeach a person ineligible to hold the office is completely off the mark if, indeed, he is not legally eligible to hold that office.  As a military man, you are rightfully not required – or allowed, for that matter – to make such Judicial determination as those which will eventually be done by the Supreme Court.  Your paragraph 6 is merely another shameful and misguided attempt to justify your grossly inequitable ruling.

Instead you should allow the presentation of the documents and witnesses the defense requests so that a full and legally complete (from a military standpoint) court record may be discerned.  If Mr. Obama can show his Constitutional eligibility, that’s fine.  If he cannot, that’s fine, too.  In either event you will have done your proper job and will not have violated the oath to the Constitution that you swore …which you are now in serious jeopardy of doing.

Please rethink and revise your ruling!

Joe E. Sheldon, citizen

© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials