If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
“THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION”
January 2, 2010
This is my second letter to each/all of you on this matter and if you’ve not read the First Letter (dated Dec. 22, 2010), it is included as an attachment that should be read in toto prior to this one, as the method of address and other matters are covered therein allowing the context to be clearly understood.
I have already commented on the truly ironic circumstance of two of the highest courts in America – one military and one civil – in dealing with the matter of Presidential eligibility as they have each incorrectly done and by going in opposite directions; the civil evading the jurisdiction by means of legal fictions such as “standing” and “political question” and the military by assuming (incorrectly) that it was superior to the United States Constitution and implicitly ruling on a matter it had no right or jurisdiction to so rule. These two courts have scuttled in opposite directions to try to absolve themselves of any blame or responsibility in the matter at hand. Yet it seems that for different reasons, both must be involved, as we shall see.
Both are operating in a mode of supreme cowardice in the matter at hand and both, in the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, are committing “Treason to the Constitution” but for distinctly different reasons. For the moment let’s set aside the pathetic cowardice of SCOTUS and review only actions of the military. Perhaps all of you have forgotten your sworn Oath taken when you became Officers of the United States. It surely seems so.
Your Oath swore allegiance to NOT the President of the United States nor even to the United States itself, but to the Constitution of the United States. This document is, in fact, a contract between the citizens of the US and those in government (and, by extension the military also) as to how those citizens agree to be governed. It is a binding document for us all, though some seem to have lost sight of this truth. One of the precepts delineated therein is that to be eligible to hold the office of Commander In Chief (and thereby command the military) a person is required, among other things, to be a “natural born Citizen.” That term is specified by mandatory “shall” language … not “could be” or “ought to be” or “probably is” or “claims to be” or “wishes to be” but “SHALL BE”!!!
You as some of the leading lights of our military have sworn to uphold and defend the United States Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would urge you to return to your roots and go back and read the Oath you took and think about its meaning to assure yourself that you have honestly and completely remained true to it. It seems unlikely in the extreme that you have. In my First Letter I brought out the fact that the military court system (I called it the UCMJ) cannot and should not presume the man now holding the office who has never shown himself to be legally eligible either is – or is not – eligible for that office. That clearly is not your job nor your duty but lies instead within the jurisdiction of the OTHER high court … but let’s stick with your responsibilities and jurisdiction for the time being.
You believe that a member of your armed forces violated orders given him and in the First Letter we discussed the diametrically opposed position of the UCMJ courts and the WWII Nuremberg court as they clearly dash off in opposite directions. I am in no way judging that Terry Lakin did or did not violate orders but merely saying that you believe he did. In fact, though, is it not true that his original complaint was about only the deployment order to Afghanistan as part of the so-called “surge” and that this deployment order had to be signed by the President??? The other items involved in his hearing seem well off of that particular mark and no amount of prosecutorial “cleverness” mitigates that fact.
In conducting the Lakin hearing, the military judge seemed aghast at being some sort of a perceived party to “embarrassing” the man functioning as the CIC. This seemed to be of great concern, but the court was never itself asked to (nor should they) rule on the man’s eligibility. They could certainly, however – and I believe should have – passed the “eligibility buck” to the United States Supreme Court where it belongs as a question of Constitutional interpretation. In that manner, the military court could have easily enough held the Lakin matter in abeyance until SCOTUS had ruled on the matter, which would not only have given Terry Lakin the answer he sought (whether for good or ill) but also would then have allowed the UCMJ process to go forward with complete Constitutional certainty behind it.
As it is now, the military clearly has very tenuous legal backing and is in the odd position of attacking the Constitution they have sworn to uphold and defend since they have not followed through on the legal path the Lakin case cries out for. Certainly you have put Lakin in prison and give him other serious punishment, but to what end?? Why is this the case??? I DO NOT KNOW…DO YOU??? In any event, the military has done nothing to fulfill their oath to the Constitution that I can see, but have done quite the opposite.
I would think there is still sufficient time to make a valid, legal, and Constitutional solution to this sorry episode, but the acts to do so have to come from the officer set I am addressing. Keep in mind that – as a huge percentage of Americans know – every member of Congress has been sent under oath and penalty of perjury a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate and the man himself – and his myrmidons as well – have stated his father (never a US citizen) was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that Obama himself was governed by those same laws at birth. That still does not mean that your military court could, or should, make any sort of eligibility ruling in the matter, as that is not your province. You should, however, recognize that there are ample amounts of evidence on both sides of the matter to raise serious doubts, and that to fulfill your Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution it should be your duty to forward the matter to the Supreme Court for action. With the recent blizzards in the area, holding their feet to the fire might even be appreciated and it is very clear that UCMJ has “standing” and is not involved in a “political question.”
Please act as a lever to solve this vexation to the Constitution since you have sworn to do so.