I'm not talking about the courts, but the military. By "revoking" a standing order without explanation or qualification can only mean one thing: the order was unlawful. And since the standing order was issued by the POTUS, the POTUS must be deemed unlawful, therefore defacto.
Regarding the Constitution, there is no provision for enforcing the "natural born citizen" rule as it pertains to the president - as a Pennsylvania district court previously pointed out, paraphrasing; "Take the remedy up with the legislative." More importantly, no US court has entertained the material facts in this/these cases, citing instead the plaintiff's lack of "standing." The military certainly has "standing," although they're now beyond the court's jurisdiction. The military may, at their discretion, challenge the Commander-in-Chief via an emergency hearing in front of the Supreme Court. Or not, since there is no civilian law on the books to challenge the CIC's citizenship. But there is the lawful requirement. The civilian courts may choose ignore, potentially inviting a lawful military takeover. The military may also choose to ignore the underlying factor of the revocation, and risk an avalanche of additional challenges. Or, speaking plainly, use the revocation to run Obama out of office because he's not a citizen as required by the Constitution. On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > d.b. > > Don't be so fast. We all know the requirements for running for POTUS, > I have a copy of the Constituion on my desk. But who knows for sure > what agency has the responsibility to CONFIRM one's basic > qualifications? Is it the FEC? When I got my passport I had to provide > proof of my citizenship to a specific authority and no one else. Sure > as hell did not have to provide proof to the media or anyone else. > The President has a Passport, social security card, driver's license, > etc. How did he get those? > > On Jul 15, 8:15 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bottom line: the US Military is now required to stand down. Or request > > orders directly and exclusively from the Joint Chiefs - all civilian > > appointees are out. > > > On Jul 15, 8:37 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > d.b, > > > > The Major's reasoning is sound. Under the UCMJ folowiing the orders of > > > a superior officer who who was not legally entitled to hold his rank/ > > > office would be illegal. > > > > On Jul 15, 7:27 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > [Q] - A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for > > > > deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders > > > > revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a > > > > president who has not proven his eligibility for office. > > > > > His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded > > > > his impending deployment orders. > > > > > "We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It > > > > means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that > > > > the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – > > > > and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!" > > > > > She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No > > > > reasons – just revoked." > > > > >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009-Hide quoted text > > > >- > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
