Military doesn't back ObamaFollow

phil,

Unlike liberals I don't wish harm to come to those I disagree with politically. Tell me how many times did you wish death on W while he was prez?



Edited, Jul 28th 2009 6:02pm by publiusvarus

Unless they hail from Chicago.

We're talking him specifically and not Washington in general, right?

White farm girls from the heartland are bad news.

That wouldn't be contrary to what he said.

URDOINITRONG!!!

Not once.

"President Cheney"

*shudder*
*cringe*
*twitch*

Edited, Jul 29th 2009 12:15pm by Ambrya

Debo,



I wouldn't want to discriminate now would I? Besides it's not like anyone would really miss chicago.

Jophed,

But he has taxpayers to buy him all new stuff if that were to happen.

Jophed,

Sure you can. Just ask Schwartzeneger.

Laugh out louds = automatic rate up.

Umm my little bro is military, I'm anti government, and after several talks with him on his political stance my understanding is this. To join and remain in the armed forces no military member may promote, or endorse any political candidate over another. They may not participate in political parties, they may not campaign for candidates. Active duty military cannot run for president or any public office.

This has historical basis since George Washington our first president, and author of a great deal of our Military traditions was fiercely against political parties which were popular in England; and caused divisiveness, and distrust between the people and their government. If he'd had his way there would be no Democrats, or Republicans because legally the organizations would be illegal.

What this means for the the case posted by the OP is, this individual voluntarily had himself reactivated. He has not defied military law, or his oath in that respect. He has instead challenged orders handed down not by the president, but by the Pentagon and can be court martialed or dishonorably discharged. That the military suspended his orders does indicate that the military higher ups want to see how the federal courts handle this case before making that decision.

There is a deeper issue at stake, should he push this case, and if the presidents birth certificate is unsealed, and the president proven inelligible to hold that office, this man will be set free. If president Obama is proven elligible to hold office this man would face charges for High Treason. The military still hangs, but Treason gets the firing squad. Of course our government doesn't exactly know where to define treason anymore, and the people are too cowardly to see those old laws enforced.

You don't think things through much, do you?

At the risk of bringing this up again, even though I agree it's a minor issue and far less important than a dozen others, this sort of statement still drives me nuts:



No. The exact opposite. The dismissal of most cases to this point was specifically because until he actually took office, no US citizen could show cause to file suit.



Some of us pursue this issue with interest, not out of some desire to "get Obama", but out of a recognition that there is a gap between what the Constitution says, and the practice of electing Presidents. There is a Constitutional requirement for president, yet absolutely no mechanism in place to establish that said requirement has been reached.

It's a loophole that really ought to be addressed. And if that means taking Obama to court and determining exactly what documentation legally meets the qualifying criteria for being President of the United States, then that is what we should do. Cause right now, we've got nothing to go on.



/shrug

Some of us disagree. How about we let the court decide?



Stating an opinion is not the same as "proof". As many other posters have stated, someone in the military is subject to orders given by the President as Commander in Chief. Thus, they can be put in harms way (and receive harm) as a direct consequence of a particular person holding the office. That gives them cause to question the legitimacy of said orders and is very relevant.


Again. It's not about attacking Obama. Trust me. The last thing I want is for it to be discovered that he doesn't meet the qualifications. "President Biden" is pretty darn scary. Even saying it gives me the willies...

It's about determining exactly what documentation satisfies the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen". More importantly, it's about defining a methodology for establishing said documentation prior to the election. So yeah. I think it's important to go through the steps of this thing instead of just ignoring it because we don't like the implications in this particular case.