rigs, That's nice, but i thought the subject was military law.
On Jul 17, 1:53 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Good grief! We agree on something! Of course we are not WW1 France, > however there is a universality in great art that taps human character > and motives beyond the historical time frame. > > On Jul 17, 8:12 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > rigs, > > > Wonderful movie, seen it a number of times. Do I really need to tell > > you that this is not France and not WWI? By "the military" I of course > > meant the military of the United States and I meant now. I'm sorry if > > that was not clear. > > > On Jul 17, 6:32 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "Paths of Glory". A film. Rent it. > > > > On Jul 16, 8:26 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > D.B. > > > > > No, you are wrong. The military can revoke ANY order for ANY reason or > > > > no reason at all. If one has the authority to issue an order than same > > > > person/command has the authority to rescind or nullify that same > > > > order. > > > > > On Jul 15, 9:35 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
