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

Why has the military failed to question Obama about his eligibility?

matthew.kemkes@us.army.mil
Robert.manning1@us.army.mil
carla.hawleybowland@us.army.mil
karl.horst@us.army.mil

Officers:

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.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Yes, each of the aforenamed military officers should be arrested, charged, tried, convicted and imprisioned/executed for treason.

    So should anyone else who had/has a fiduciary duty to actually verify Obama’s eligibilty to campaign for/serve as POTUS.

    The traitors will number in the hundreds. GitMo or Alcatraz?

  2. They still have a chance to save their honor – oops, poor choice of a word. They still have a chance to do the right thing. If they persist, they, along with many others, should be brought up on charges of treason.

  3. Though you have encapsulated what should the heuristic path for the resolution of this
    travesty, in truth, it underscores the depth of the corruption in the entirety of our
    governmental infrastructure.

    Our militaries should take their cue from how the ancient roman generals handled
    perceived corruptions in the roman senate or their caesars.

  4. SIRS: this letter is most interesting for the fact that it Admonishes our “Defenders of the Constitution” to be Right and Just, and to Pursue their “SWORN DUTY to the Constitution and Charge the Usurper with High Crimes and Misdemeanors and Possibly TREASON??!!
    420+/- Lawsuits lay in Rubble because of “The People have NO Standing??”, because we have an entire Garrison of Military Officers in “The Chain of Command” suffering from Severe DEMENTIA in regards to their Sworn and Attested Diligence to “The Constitution of the United States of America, So Help me GOD??”
    Does “The Pot call the Kettle BLACK??”
    Whomever is Responsible for the Creation of this Bizarre Coruption of our Nation and “The Rule of Law Documents that have existed for 234 years MUST be Found and HUNG!! This, I Fear, will NOT happen when SCOTUS has all but Declared the Constitution NULL & VOID!!
    May GOD Have Mercy on U.S. ALL!

  5. Title 18 USC 2382 Misprision of Treason

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002382—-000-.html

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

    Title 18 USC 4 Misprision of Felony

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html

    (Failure to do so is another Federal Felony!)
    (read’s as follow’s)
    Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    Title 18 USC 2384 Seditious Conspiracy

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002384—-000-.html

    1. > Title 18 USC 2384 Seditious Conspiracy

      Maybe some people here should read that before they call for the military to overthrow the government. I don’t see 18 USC §2384 having an exception like “unless said persons believe their government has become socialist”.

  6. “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,
    excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States”……

    “the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude from
    its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”

    (Obama was born a British subject inherited from his father who was never a u.s. citizen.

    Fourteenth Amendment http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

    You don’t believe me…..then check this out!

    Slaughter House Cases (appears just past half way down the page)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

    That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

    (Obama admits he was born a British subject, so therefore he is not entitled jurisdiction of section 1 of the 14 th Amendment)

    It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

    note: (Obama’s Mother was not old enough to convey u.s. citizenship onto him)
    you must be ten years a resident, 5 of which shall be over the age of 14. (19)
    Stanley Ann Dunham (mother) was only 18 years old (shy by 3 months)

    a. section 301 Dec 24, 1954 (see page 17 of 101)
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    Some of you might want to investigate the use of Capitol “C” versus small “c”, as
    used in Article II “natural born Citizen” versus the 14th Amendment -All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

    I’m not making this stuff up, read the Laws yourselves……Dan Smith, NY

    1. > “the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude from
      its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”

      If that were the case, why didn’t they just put “except citizens or subjects of foreign states” there if it means the same as “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?

      > Some of you might want to investigate the use of Capitol “C” versus small “c”

      Jedi Pauly, is that you? Hasn’t your alleged capitalization argument been refuted numerous times on the P&E?

      1. I quess you did not read this Legal case

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

        I have NEVER read “any” arguments on “C” versus “c”…….
        Read the Constitution and decide yourself. Don’t forget, interpretations are to be
        as when the Constitution was written.

        YOU SAID:Jedi Pauly, is that you? Hasn’t your alleged capitalization argument been refuted numerous times on the P&E?

        Who is Jedi Pauly? and where are there “refuted” arguments. Please list them.

        At least, I attach a “link” to back what I wrote….Where are yours?

        If that were the case, why didn’t they just put “except citizens or subjects of foreign states”
        (THATS NOT HOW THINGS WERE WRITTEN BACK THEN)

        Many people suggest that the 14th was never Legally ratified as many (southern)
        Senators were not properly “seated” , but under armed guard.

        Indonesia is a “one” citizenship Country. If one of their citizens has a child born in
        the United States We cannot force u.s. citizenship onto that child.

  7. i’ve been sayin since 2006 and i’ll keep on sayin, if & when, the gallows at leavenworth are to be erected, the conga line to the noose would break all conga line records!!! since 2008, a record that’s impossible to ever break. that really is the deal. not knowing, is not an excuse, seriously, death for all who meekly & passively accept an illegal alien as their POTUS.