catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Actually, gbaji, if you read the entire 43 page document, the judge explicitly says that while there is a right to question the President's fitness to serve in office, that place is not a local court, but Congress. As per the Constitution.
No. He said it wasn't the place of the 3rd branch of government to create or enforce the rules in the Constitution. But he's bypassing the issue. By that argument no Constitutional case would *ever* have standing. The entire assumption in a Constitutional case is that either the executive or the legislative branches (or both) have failed to protect the citizens rights.
Congress has the power and responsibility for applying the Presidential requirements for office. The argument here is that they have failed to do so. Congress doesn't have the "right" to do this, nor do they hold the only "right" to do this. Branches of government don't have rights. People have rights. Congress has responsibilities. While the judge in this case is clever with the language, he's failed to recognize that the responsibility of the court is not to provide cover for other failings in other branches, but to address them.
Quote:
And that requesting a stay of deployment based on such questions is therefore not an appropriate case for court.
Yeah. I did read that part. He's wrong. Dead wrong. Every single constitutional case that has ever come before any court in the history of this country fails the "test" he has put in place here.
Quote:
When you sign up for the military, by the by, you sign away your Constitutional "right to life." Uncle Sam has no qualms about sending you off to get killed if necessary.
Quote:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The oath every single soldier in the military takes binds him to defense of the constitution and obedience specifically to the President of the US. Officers take an additional oath promising the same thing plus some verbiage about discharging the duties of their office, entering of free will, blah blah...
They do not give up a right to life. They agree to obey the orders of the President and the chain of command which flows from the President. If there is a question in the mind of a soldier as to whether the person occupying the office of president does so in violation of the Constitution (which he's required to defend), it creates a conflict of interest. If they are asked to put their lives in danger under that condition, it can be further said to violate other Constitutional protections as well.
I know everyone would love to just see this go away, but I'm still mystified as to why or how it's easier for judges to keep finding really screwball reasons to toss out cases when courts routinely order documents of exactly the sort at issue to be opened and examined to verity things far less important than qualification to be President.
The lengths to which some seem to want to go to avoid looking at a single document is incredible IMO. And Smash? They're still dismissing cases on standing. Using incredibly twisted illogic to do so, but they're still essentially refusing to hear the cases. That's not the same thing. So far, not a single judge has even allowed a case challenging the presidents qualifications to go to court. It's all been preliminary garbage and legal trickery. This latest example, while well concealed in all the harsh language thrown at counsel, is an incredibly poor ruling.
I'll ask again: How does an active duty soldier who questions whether the commander in chief is constitutionally qualified to hold the office not have standing to bring a case? You're talking about someone who could die as a direct result of the conditions at question. If that's not legitimate standing, then what is? Roe wasn't even pregnant anymore when the Supreme Court heard her case, yet that didn't stop them from hearing it anyway. These soldiers absolutely are still under the command of someone they aren't sure is the legitimate source of the chain of command. How is that not standing? Yet somehow, we're supposed to be so distracted by making fun of Orly Taitz that we just miss that the ruling itself was really really bad.
