Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dm_felionous" data-source="post: 2008761" data-attributes="member: 728122">What does Obama&#039;s citizenship have to do with an officers&#039; orders to deploy overseas?&nbsp; Officers receive their commission from the Congress of the United States and their orders through their chain of command. They answer to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and may not appeal to a civil court to argue with their orders.&nbsp; This is one of the flimsier arguments I have heard of.&nbsp; Essentially the argument appears to be that no order in the military is lawful because of a perceived doubt in the Presidents citizenship status and the fact that the President is the top of the chain of command. The argument is flawed though because individual orders do not originate with the top of the chain of command.&nbsp; They originate with whomever has the authority to give the orders and authority is derived from congress not the president.&nbsp; This captain is going to end up in prison if she is not careful.&nbsp; Her argument is already moot because she has presumably followed some order given in the last 9 months so she must have a problem with this particular order and not the lawfulness of orders in general.Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, this is not the way to challenge it. The birther argument is ridiculous anyway since Obama&#039;s mother is a natural born US citizen.&nbsp; He could have been born on Mars and still be legal.&nbsp; I have heard all of the arguments and they only work on people with no knowledge of the law.&nbsp; This is a classic example of a propaganda technique known as a &quot;Big Lie&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dm_felionous, post: 2008761, member: 728122"] What does Obama's citizenship have to do with an officers' orders to deploy overseas? Officers receive their commission from the Congress of the United States and their orders through their chain of command. They answer to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and may not appeal to a civil court to argue with their orders. This is one of the flimsier arguments I have heard of. Essentially the argument appears to be that no order in the military is lawful because of a perceived doubt in the Presidents citizenship status and the fact that the President is the top of the chain of command. The argument is flawed though because individual orders do not originate with the top of the chain of command. They originate with whomever has the authority to give the orders and authority is derived from congress not the president. This captain is going to end up in prison if she is not careful. Her argument is already moot because she has presumably followed some order given in the last 9 months so she must have a problem with this particular order and not the lawfulness of orders in general. Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, this is not the way to challenge it. The birther argument is ridiculous anyway since Obama's mother is a natural born US citizen. He could have been born on Mars and still be legal. I have heard all of the arguments and they only work on people with no knowledge of the law. This is a classic example of a propaganda technique known as a "Big Lie" [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…