During the Bush Administration, there were a few members of the military who deserted their country and their brothers in arms. In order to justify their treason, they decided on their own that the Iraq war was Unconstitutional. Their legal reasoning was absurd, but more importantly, they didn’t have the authority or standing to make those decisions. In pushing the line between the military and its civilian superiors, they dangerously threatened our entire Constitutional scheme, begging liberal judges to legitimize the concept of coup d’etat.
When I was in law school, I wrote extensively about one of these criminals named Ehren Watada. I was unsparing in my criticism of him, and stand by that criticism now.
Now, there are at least two soldiers on the other side of the political spectrum who have decided to mimic these tactics. Like the deserters on the left, no matter how we might feel about the current Commander in Chief, these soldiers deserve nothing but our scorn.
—
The poster child for this little revolt is 1st LT Scott Easterling. His legal argument is that President Obama hasn’t proven to LT Easterling’s satisfaction that he’s a “natural born citizen” as required to be eligible for the Presidency, and therefore he is an “impostor” whose orders must not be followed.
But LT Easterling isn’t responsible for vetting candidates and accepting them onto state ballots. He’s not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who swore the President in. That’s not his judgement call to make. He’s entitled to his opinion, certainly, but to publicly repudiate or refuse to follow the orders of the CinC when he’s on active duty is a crime, and he should be held accountable for it.
I find the Constitutional arguments unavailing. (For a discussion I had on another blog about it, see the post and comment thread here.) But really, it’s beside the point with regard to these guys’ actions.
On the lefty side, the deserters claimed the Iraq War was Unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. Others more amorphously decided the war constituted a war crime, and made a moral judgment that it wasn’t the right thing to do.
One of the arguments I always made to answer this was to have them imagine a General who thinks the President is derelict in his Constitutional duty to keep Americans safe because he wouldn’t order a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear production facilities, and so orders it anyway. Would they accept the General’s own Constitutional or moral judgment? Should he be excused or praised for “following his heart”?
And then in the midst of a claim of principle is the naked partisanship. There is an argument that has been made that McCain would also have been ineligible due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone – any thoughts on whether LT Easterling would have refused to follow the orders of a President McCain?
—
One of the foundations of a free society is that the military is under the total control of an elected civilian government. The military is a powerful force, and world history is littered with the corpses of civilizations and nations whose military leadership realized they had the physical might to ignore the political establishment and even take their place. To accept a precedent of soldiers ignoring a President they don’t like is to invite a great evil on our system.
I think it matters if the President is ineligible, just as it would matter if it turned out he was only 26. But that question is already being explored in a multitude of courts by civilian activists, who have every right to make those challenges. And the important thing is that they are seeking an adjudication by someone with the authority to make a binding determination upon which others may act – they are not already acting (in terms of accepting the President’s lawful authority and following federal law where applicable) as if their lawsuits have already been won.
What matters even more (at least to me) than the relatively technical question of where Obama was actually born is that he was legitimately elected by a majority of American voters (and more importantly, State electoral college votes). Easterling refers to the President as an “usurper” and an “impostor.”
But Obama didn’t usurp anyone. The man in the White House is the same person those wide-eyed hopeful voters cast their ballots for. (That the tax cutting, gun protecting, transparency demanding, budget hawk Reaganite of the campaign trail isn’t manifesting himself now that he’s in office is a surprise only to the wilfully ignorant, and in any event is a political question rather than a Constitutional one.)
Once elected, the election was certified. He was sworn in by the nation’s top judge (twice). The old administration completed a turnover, and left town at the appointed date and time. Like it or not, Barack Obama is the duly elected President of the United States of America (at least until the Supreme Court determines otherwise), the office holder all military officers swear an oath to obey the orders of.
—
It is unclear what the two soldiers in question are actually doing right now. Watada refused to deploy with his unit, and so he was prosecuted for missing movement. Just what orders have been as yet refused from Obama is unknown.
What they have done is agree to join one of the lawsuits alleging Obama isn’t eligible to be President, which alone would seem to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s prohibition on badmouthing the President or members of Congress (at least doing said bad-mouthing in some kind of official capacity). At the very least, I would argue it’s conduct unbecoming an officer. In any event, I hope they’re prosecuted, booted, and aren’t rewarded by the Obama haters the same way deserters in the past eight years were lauded, lionized, and supported by the Bush hating socialist left.
Our nation has enough problems with a President who doesn’t know what he’s doing, an economy in the midst of the whithering bombardment of socialism, and enemies launching ballistic missiles and firing up nuclear reactors. We don’t need a military coup and a Constitutional crisis on top of the rest of it.
—
Besides – if this lawsuit is successful, Joe Biden becomes the President. Does anyone really want that?
I take your overall point, Orrin; but personally I admire the courage of these Patriots.
Someone needs to force the SCOTUS to rule on this Constitutional question. I am not a lawyer; but I have delved into this issue more extensively than most lawyers who are dismissing it out of hand. I found Leo Donofrio’s SCOTUS pleading regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen most persuasive. It seems beyond question that the original intent of the framers would require that anyone aspiring to the office of POTUS would need, at a minimum, to have two parents who were US citizens at the time of his birth.
By his own admission, Obama fails that test; yet of the plethora of lawsuits filed all over this country challenging his candicy, no judge has had the courage to make a Constitutional ruling. Every case has been dismissed at lower levels on the grounds that the petitioner lacked standing. Those that made it to SCOTUS failed to achieve cert. Every attempt to get a ruling on this has thus failed, leaving it still an open question.
At this point, it appears that the only individuals who possibly could prove standing are military personnel who are required to take orders from the CinC. These people are also required to swear an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution. If I were still in the Army and knew what I now know, I would find myself just as conflicted as these Patriots. It is not their fault that they find themselves in such a cunundrum.
It is the joint fault of Obama for ignoring the Natural Born requirement and aggressively challenging every suit filed, and the judges for ducking their own sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. These Patriots must realize that their careers are over. They will probably be courts marshaled. It takes guts to do what they are doing, and I respect them for it.
As to those who challenged the Constitutionality of the war, I haven’t looked into their case; but I have some sympathy with the notion that Congress must declare war, and shouldn’t be able to abdicate that responsibility by passing a statute giving the prerogative to the CinC, as they did with Bush and Iraq. If this was their issue and the courts were denying regular citizens standing to challenge this Constitutional question, then I would wholeheartedly support them for the same reason.
It is high time that our Constitution be taken seriously, and not subverted for pragmatic political reasons. It is not just a guideline, it is supposed to be the basic law of the land. This is a republic, not a democracy, and I don’t care if 99% of the sheeple would like to ignore some of its tennents, it cannot be changed by fiat.
As for the specter of Biden as POTUS, it would be infinitely preferable to the Obamessiah. He is a clown, for sure; but that very fact would mean that the press would hold him accountable for his actions. The MSM is so in love with this Marxist usurper that he can do no wrong in their eyes. Our capitalist republic is coming apart at the seams.
This is all going to become academic soon. I am afraid there is going to be no way to avoid the coming revolution. People are fed up, and they are not going to take it much longer. Look around the internet. People are buying guns and ammunition in unprecedented numbers. Militias are forming all across the land again, and for the first time since the OKC bombing, people are openly talking about belonging to one.
It is only a matter of time until something triggers the Bubba Effect. It occurred to me that it might be a good idea to have some 00 Buckshot shells for my 12Ga. I went into the sporting goods department of a WalMart store yesterday to buy some, here in the Progressive La La Land of California. I was stunned at the empty shelves where their ammunition was usually displayed.
I asked if they were going out of the ammo business, and they said not at all; but every time they get a shipment in, all the popular calibers sell out in a matter of hours. People are screaming, and politicians are not listening. If the 1st Amendment won’t work, the 2nd one will. Buckle up, and be prepared. We are in for some challenging times ahead. -Dave-
Since writing the above, I find that the soldier you excoriated has not defied any orders, the WND and Drudge headlines were in error, and he has been getting poor advice from the attorney driving this case, which he is only joining not initiating. What would be your opinion if he had said this:
Would you consider that traitorous, or even disrespectful? -Dave-
I agree with you that these servicemen should be prosecuted. I disagree that they deserve “scorn” (which isn’t to say I would praise them).
If a Solider/Sailor/Airman/Marine genuinely believes that their commander has issued an illegal order (or that the commander’s position is, of itself, illegal) and is willing to accept the trial and punishment for refusing that order I have no problem with it.
I may not agree with that individual. I may strongly disagree. But let us recall that our nation was one of those who determined that “following orders” not a defense (just to Goodwin the hell out of this thread early). If that person’s conscience dictates disobedience, and they accept the consequence of that, it’s fine by me.
“It seems beyond question that the original intent of the framers would require that anyone aspiring to the office of POTUS would need, at a minimum, to have two parents who were US citizens at the time of his birth.”
Well, it’s not at all beyond the question. As I’ve said before, that would any child born out of wedlock where one parent couldn’t be identified ineligible, and I just don’t think a group that included Alexander Hamilton would have been on board with that. But again, the veracity (or lack thereof) of the Constitutional arguments misses a much larger point.
When members of the active duty military start declaring the POTUS illegitimate, the danger to the fabric of our free nation is incalculable.
Imagine, for a minute, that the SCOTUS decided the issue in Obama’s favor. Even if that decision were unanimous, would you (or LT Easterling) accept that decision? Or would you decide that the court was making a decision out of political expediency/necessity, and still declare some action needed to be taken to “protect” the Constitution? More frightening, would LT Easterling do that?
What if the decision were split, with even one justice dissenting? Bush v. Gore did enough damage in terms of the perceived politicization of the Court.
What if more and more military folks essentially went on strike to protest, forcing the SCOTUS to reach the decision they liked, and/or forcing Obama to step down? How is that not a coup?
And what if the Supreme Court DID tell Obama to step down in what was perceived by his supporters as a military strong arm move? Do you think they won’t suddenly discover the joys of gun ownership themselves? It would be bad enough if the decision came after a civilian suit. The idea that the implied use of military force was behind the outcome to a lawsuit is terrifying to me.
No. This road is far too dangerous. This kind of rebellion, if it takes hold, could only end in total disaster. The short sightedness of it on LT Easterling’s part is what earns my scorn.
As for his actions, they’ve been done. Joining the lawsuit is no different from instigating it – he’s still joined the fight very publicly. That’s not a bell which can be un-rung. You can’t maintain good order and discipline with an officer in a unit who has announced publicly that he won’t recognize his CinC!
If LT Easterling insists on being prosecuted, pleads guilty, and sits in the brig to make a statement, I’ll reverse my opinion of him. Otherwise, this is a purely partisan political move with the most dangerous of potential consequences.
The issue of a legal bastard would need to be settled in court too, and unless the mother was in the habit of sleeping with foreigners would probably be easily done. In this case, however, Obama admits on his own campaign website that he was a dual citizen until he was 21, which is clearly a case of divided loyalty.
Granting you all of the negative effects this issue is causing, could cause, and undoubtedly will cause, Lt. Easterling is not the perpetrator. It is the supposed Constitutional Law professor, Barack Obama, who has knowingly perpetrated this massive fraud on our body politic. It is he that should be scorned and denied all respect for it.
I seriously doubt that Easterling will be prosecuted, for the same reason that no court will touch this issue. Obama is a usurper; that would be his obvious defense, and the last thing the powers that be will want is a very public trial that looks at the evidence his defense would present.
Easterling is a pawn in a very serious game that isn’t going to end well. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens were screaming their lungs out over this matter before Obama was elected and sworn in. The damned courts failed to do their sworn duty and continued to duck the issue with lame excuses, denying any and all petitioners standing. I predicted at the time that it wouldn’t go away and that military personnel would have standing once he was in office.
Now, an attorney, for whatever motive – partisan or not – has talked Easterling and others into joining the latest effort. If this fails, there will be others. Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to rule. There will be some seriously pissed off Americans, whichever way they do. The one most responsible for the outcome will be Obama himself, not the pawns dragged into the fray. Right or wrong, they are just Patriots trying to do what they think is right for their country. ?Dave?
History is littered with corpses and true tyrannies because misguided patriots defied their lawful governments because they wanted to “do what they think is right for their country” but didn’t want to wait for elections.
We’ve long since gotten rid of the concept of a “legal bastard,” which is a good thing. The issue of “natural born citizen” is NOT clear, and of all of Obama’s Constitutional abuses and misunderstandings, this is the least of them.
What Americans are screaming about is the mortgaging of their future. Except for a small group of people who have seized on this issue as an escape from the coming socialism (much like the Left’s constant rants about impeachment of Bush for this imagined slight or that), most people don’t buy the arguments and/or care about many other things.
If the courts DO decide it, it will be in Obama’s favor. Like like Justice Marshall twisted legal reasoning into acrobatic knots in order to justify Indian land grabbing in M’Intosh v. Johnson because the alternative could have been the dissolution of the Union. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and the Court will not rule to oust a President with more electoral support than any White House resident has enjoyed in 24 years on an obscure, VERY arguable technicality that NO court looking at the issue has found merit in to date.
This whole thing is a distraction. If I was an Obama strategist, I’d keep the flames of this issue stoked as long as I could and then use it to ridicule all Conservatives (maybe THAT’S why he hasn’t released that long form birth certificate). I hate the issue because it’s an easy one for the socialists to run with and paint all conservatives as crazy, dead-ender conspiracy theorists. If the majority of Americans who don’t live and breath politics see this as a or worse, THE argument Obama’s opposition has when they’re concerned about losing their houses and the GOP is fighting the false attacks of “do-nothing-ism” and partisanship, Conservatism will NEVER recover.
But even if one thinks this issue is more important than it is, and is worth the political capital expended in fighting over it, THE ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY CANNOT BE INVOLVED. I don’t WANT revolution. It is NOT necessary or unavoidable, and there is no guarantee (in fact, the odds are very good against it) that anything resembling a free and prosperous society will come after such a thing. We have another round of elections in less than 2 years, and have a chance to go after Spendy McSocialist himself in less than 4.
Let’s keep our heads, not let military members become a LITERAL “force” in our political system. I’d rather have Euro-style socialism than that.
To be clear, Active Duty military are forbidden (and justifiably so) from participating in any form of formal political campaigning (as said members of the military). So, to put a simple end to things, these men can be held accountable under the UCMJ and the issue resolved. I would argue the actions of “debating” the validity of citizenship of the President to be such “campaigning.” The military does not afford a “crises of conscious” for its personnel. If you want to be political, face the music and reap the consequences. Seriously, there is nothing different here than a uniformed member supporting a candidate as a member of the military…except this person is disobeying orders from personnel with NO affiliation with Obama…and never did…nor ever will. Their argument is a paper tiger. More dangerous though is the breakdown in command these members are willingly or unwillingly supporting. Should their crises of conscious be heard and heeded, the lives all soldiers/airmen/sailors/coast guardsmen will be in mortal jeopardy. Mr. Johnson is absolutely right…Obama should milk this thing for as long as he can. The Right looks desperate and Obama looks the victim…the Liberals favorite position. Kudos to Mr. Johnson for seeing the real picture…and not automatically siding with the anti-Obama movement. The purpose of this blog in getting to the solid truth through the forge of debate is further solidified!
I am a military wife. In discussions with my husband ,who is retired, we both agree that the military has the support and trust of the nation because it remains apolitical. Any political involvement serves to undermine that trust. The President was sworn in by the Chief Justice and congress validated his election. Individual soldiers, sailors and airman who question his status should resign and become active in civilian politics. We should also be aware that some at the fringe of the movement for his removal have advocated violence. I would note that everyone knew that Obama’s father was a British Citizen at the time of his birth. None of the lawyers in Congress, liberal, conservative, democrat or republican questioned his status based on his father’s citizenship or Obama’s status at birth. Nor did the Supreme Court. That should tell folks who believe Natural Born Citizens must be the children of two United States Citizens at birth that many do not share their opinion regarding status including those designated to inforce the Constutution and its provisions and to interpret it. They seem to believe they have the authority to interpret the constitution. They do not. The Supreme Court does that.