mi?rcoles, 22 de septiembre de 2010
In reference to Military Law Manual: Authority to order courts-martial resides with the Commander-i
Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:24
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
UPDATE: MY MESSAGE BELOW WAS DELETED FROM  COURT MARTIAL PAGE.  

  
 I posted the link to an article at

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/19/military-law-manual-authority-to-order-courts-martial-resides-with-the-commander-in-chief/

 In reference to Military Law Manual: Authority to order courts-martial resides with the Commander-in-Chief.

And Mr. Sullivan gave me his opinion. Here is my answer to him and his words.

----------------------------------

 Thanks for your opinion Mr.Sullivan I'm not a lawyer, my English is broken since is not my first language, I posted the link to the article  by Fitzpatrick, I thought it was educational, but I would like to ask you some questions  since I guess you are a lawyer and please forgive me if I give my opinion on another issue. I will understand since is not related to the Court Martial if you ignore me. I will post this at the source  of the article at http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/19/military-law-manual-authority-to-order-courts-martial-resides-with-the-commander-in-chief/

  
-----------------------------------------
  
  
"Section 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, (1) when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
  
Please explain the meaning of below.
  
1-When called into the actual Service of the United States,.
  
The Limited View.—The purely military aspects of the Commander-in-Chiefship were those that were originally stressed. Hamilton said the office “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy.”112 Story wrote in his CommentariesEnfurruñado2) “The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders,
  
2-The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders
  
  
U.S. Army Major Stefan Cook has had his deployment order revoked. Yesterday we told you about Maj. Cook and his assertion that President Barack Obama is not a legal, natural-born U.S. citizen, and therefore does not have the authority to send soldiers to war. Today that deployment order was revoked with no statement from the military.
  
  
See this video from December 1, 2009 at West Point at 10.20
  

  

00:10:20
Obama, Barack - President, [D] United States

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S troops to Afghanistan

------------------------------------------------

Mr. Sullivan

If Obama is a Constitutional president and per the Constitution the Commander in Chief like he said  he is and he determined to send troops, why any judge or any military in service who took the Oath to the Constitution could not ask, verify or make sure after so many cases in court or comments by Constitutional experts  to see his real long birth certificate verified by Hawaii  as step one for his Constitutional post? Then after is done by the State ,the Senate should declare him natural born as they did with McCain, both parents at birth had to be citizens but Obama's father was not citizen, then Senate will not override what they declare before  it will have to be done by the Supreme Court, but they do not want to get involved like Judge Thomas said at Congress. What should We do then? Let it go, wait few years for the truth to come out or solve  now by two ways, first at this Court Martial or an investigation by Congress to impeach the Usurper.

In the 19th century some new Republics in Latin America had their Constitutions similar to ours. Mexico in their 1917 Constitution has that to be elected president has to be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the full enjoyment of his rights, and the son of Mexican parents by birth.
 
In reference to your opinion below it's like chinese to me, I do not understand.
If the  Court Martial is giving to a soldier for not obey orders, and the cause for his reason exist but can not be seen by any one, like do not exist, the consequence is that we have the Constitutional Crisis we are facing. Some times I wonder how smart was Ben Franklin,  when he gave us a Republic, and how ignorant we are because  we didn't know how to preserve it.
 
 
 
Dwight Sullivan 09.21.10 at 18:27

Ms. Mata, Colonel Winthrop indicated that the President has the power to convene general courts-martial as both an incident of his Commander in Chief authority and by statute under the Articles of War. Under Article 22(a)(1) of the UCMJ, that continues to be the case. But the President’s own power to convene general courts-martial doesn’t mean — and it isn’t the case — that military officers derive their authority to convene courts-martial from the President. Article I, Section 8, clause 14 of the Constitution gives Congress the power and authority “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.” Congress exercised that power by adopting the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 22 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 822) governs who may convene general courts-martial. Among the classes of individuals so authorized is “any other commanding officer designated by the Secretary concerned.” There is almost certainly a Department of the Army General Order in which the Secretary of the Army has designated the Commander of the Military District of Washington as a general court-martial convening authority. That is the source of the convening authority’s power to create the general court-martial that is currently trying LTC Lakin and to refer LTC Lakin’s case to that general court-martial.

BTW, Walter Fitzpatrick’s account of history is seriously flawed.

 


Comentarios
Añadir comentario