• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

The Army that I was in and Article 138 of the UCMJ, that governed my conduct said, "A soldier has the right to complain and request correction of a grievance against his commander."

Sure, but that doesn't make the grievance legitimate.
 
The Army that I was in and Article 138 of the UCMJ, that governed my conduct said, "A soldier has the right to complain and request correction of a grievance against his commander." Additional information can also be found in FM 27-1 (Chapter 10), if you need clarity.

Perhaps we were in two different armies, afterall.

There's also something called the chain of command right?
 
The Army that I was in and Article 138 of the UCMJ, that governed my conduct said, "A soldier has the right to complain and request correction of a grievance against his commander." Additional information can also be found in FM 27-1 (Chapter 10), if you need clarity.

Perhaps we were in two different armies, afterall.

That refers to the individual's commander (commanding officers) in his/her direct chain of command and has absolutely NOTHING to do with who his or her command-in-chief is

You really stretched that one, buddy. :doh

Anyway, some time ago when all of this birther crap first presented itself, someone mentioned how each political party committee, RNC and DNC, both have procedures in place whereby they verify the eligibility of their respective presidential candidate. So, out of curiosity I did a search for the 2008 DNC bylaws, which can be read in its entirety here. Per paragraph 12K:

K. 1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:

a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last election for the office of President and Vice President; and

b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith.​
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.

To be fair, the following outlines the criteria for the RNC presidentical candidate nomination:

(5) In electing or selecting delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention, no state law shall be observed which hinders, abridges, or denies to any citizen of the United States, eligible under the Constitution of the United States to hold the office of President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, the right or privilege of being a candidate under such state law for the nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States or which authorizes the election or selection of a number of delegates or alternate delegates from any state to the national convention different from that fixed in these rules.

The RCN 2008 rules can be read here.

It's kind of ironic really when you stop and think about it that the criteria for the DNC presidential candidate are stronger than those for the RNC presidential candidate. Anyway, my point is the DNC rules are very clear. Before a Democratic presidential candidate can be placed on any state ballot, he (or she) must have voted in the last presidential election. And as we all know, only U.S. citizens have the right to vote in such elections. Before one can register to vote, he (or she) must show proof of residency, i.e., valid state driver's license and other residency documentation, such as a utility bill. The key here is the individual's driver's license. Even at age 15.5 everyone has to show some form of birth verification document to your local DMV/Driver's Ed instructor whether you provided same yourself or it is provided by your local high school administration. It all goes back to common sense, folks. Too bad some people choose not to exercise it.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but that doesn't make the grievance legitimate.

And, no where does it say that the grievance have to be legitimate, only that a soldier has the right to have his grievance addressed. It's a soldier's right after all.
 
That refers to the individual's commander (commanding officers) in his/her direct chain of command and has absolutely NOTHING to do with who his or her command-in-chief is

You really stretched that one, buddy. :doh

Anyway, some time ago when all of this birther crap first presented itself, someone mentioned how each political party committee, RNC and DNC, both have procedures in place whereby they verify the eligibility of their respective presidential candidate. So, out of curiosity I did a search for the 2008 DNC bylaws, which can be read in its entirety here. Per paragraph 12K:



To be fair, the following outlines the criteria for the RNC presidentical candidate nomination:



The RCN 2008 rules can be read here.

It's kind of ironic really when you stop and think about it that the criteria for the DNC presidential candidate are stronger than those for the RNC presidential candidate. Anyway, my point is the DNC rules are very clear. Before a Democratic presidential candidate can be placed on any state ballot, he (or she) must have voted in the last presidential election. And as we all know, only U.S. citizens have the right to vote in such elections. Before one can register to vote, he (or she) must show proof of residency, i.e., valid state driver's license and other residency documentation, such as a utility bill. The key here is the individual's driver's license. Even at age 15.5 everyone has to show some form of birth verification document to your local DMV/Driver's Ed instructor whether you provided same yourself or it is provided by your local high school administration. It all goes back to common sense, folks. Too bad some people choose not to exercise it.


Show me the DoD regulation, rule, law, document, manual, pamphlet, or within the UCMJ that a soldier's right to have a grievance heard stops at any point in the chain of command, or...

There's also something called the chain of command right?

...that a grievance has to go completely through a chain of command.

A soldier has the right to file a grievance against anyone from his company commander, on.

Personally, if I were president, I would be very embarressed that so many of my officers had so little confidence in my ability to lead them.

A good commander would address the grievance immediately and lay the matter to rest, forever. A good commander would, that is.

BTW, the DNC, nor the RNC set the rules for how the UCMJ governs our military...thank God!
 
Last edited:
Show me the DoD regulation, rule, law, document, manual, pamphlet, or within the UCMJ that a soldier's right to have a grievance heard stops at any point in the chain of command, or...



...that a grievance has to go completely through a chain of command.

A soldier has the right to file a grievance against anyone from his company commander, on.

Personally, if I were president, I would be very embarressed that so many of my officers had so little confidence in my ability to lead them.

A good commander would address the grievance immediately and lay the matter to rest, forever. A good commander would, that is.

BTW, the DNC, nor the RNC set the rules for how the UCMJ governs our military...thank God!

Conversely show us where every soldier has a right to appeal straight up to the president and have their case heard. So many soldiers? 2? How big is the military again? There aren't so many soldiers pulling this ****.
 
And, no where does it say that the grievance have to be legitimate, only that a soldier has the right to have his grievance addressed. It's a soldier's right after all.

His grievances were addressed and he was denied.
 
Show me the DoD regulation, rule, law, document, manual, pamphlet, or within the UCMJ that a soldier's right to have a grievance heard stops at any point in the chain of command, or...



...that a grievance has to go completely through a chain of command.

A soldier has the right to file a grievance against anyone from his company commander, on.

You are correct. Any elisted personnel or commissioned officer whether on active or inactive duty has the right to file a grievence and have it heard up the chain of command. However, the individual's commanding officer has every right to hear such a grievence OR consider same "resolved" or "unsubstantiated", thus denying it altogether. And at that point, the issue is laid to rest; the grievence has been heard. He could appeal it, but there is a process in place whereby it is up to his immediate chain of command to hear his proposed case and act on it accordingly. But that doesn't mean that an individual in the military has the right to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court, per sa. That's ridiculous!! In this case, based on the evidence presented (or the lack of standing in this case), if I were Lt.Col Lakin's CO I'd deny his grievence mainly because the basis of his argument as I understand it does not in any way hamper his ability to perform his duties as assigned. Besides, he'd have to prove that the President is ineligible to be president. And since he cannot...CASE CLOSED...COURT MARTIAL ON!!!

Personally, if I were president, I would be very embarressed that so many of my officers had so little confidence in my ability to lead them.
You call 2 or 3 court cases by reserve officers an embarrassment? I call it derelection of duty and loonicy especially considering these are low ranking officers mainly from the inactive reserve corps. Now, if one of his high ranking officers within DoD had filed such a grievence on these same grounds (lack of confidence as you've pointed out) then I'd be worried.

A good commander would address the grievance immediately and lay the matter to rest, forever. A good commander would, that is.
Again, you are correct. That's why, IMO, I think Lt. Col Lakin's CO should drop kick this greivence all the way to this guy's court martial and throw the book at him for derelection of duty and conduct unbecoming.

BTW, the DNC, nor the RNC set the rules for how the UCMJ governs our military...thank God!

My point in posting that information on the DNC and RNC wasn't to address how the military conducts its business, but rather to show how obsurd this entire birther argument really is. Candidates, especially those from the DNC, are vetted (and it appears more strengently than their RNC counterparts I might add) long before their names even go on the ballot. It's stupid to bring up the argument of a president's eligibility based on his citizenship long after he has been duly elected. There are procedures fully in place within each political committee to ensure their candidate is viable and qualified to run for office. Otherwise, we're talking THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY KNOWN TO MAN if Pres. Obama's U.S. citizenship isn't valid and hundreds of people KNOWINGLY involved. And if you've followed any of the birther threads on this board you'd know this issue has been proven moot. You and every other birther, truther, doubters, sore losers or whatever you're calling yourselves these days need to just give it up, get a life, find something else to bitch about because you're not getting this man out of office based on the perceived ineligibility of his U.S. citizenship.
 
Last edited:
Personally, if I were president, I would be very embarressed that so many of my officers had so little confidence in my ability to lead them.

How many of them feel this way exactly and how do you know?
 
Dishonorable Discharge for conduct unbecoming an intelligent person.

NEXT!
 
His grievances were addressed and he was denied.

Where were they addressed? Please be specific. It appears to me that he was ignored and sent straight to a courts martial. I guess he had to be silenced, before he made too much noise.

Liberals are calling tea partiers seditious and court martialling anyone who dares question The One. This country is looking more and more like the Soviet Union, everyday.
 
You are correct. Any elisted personnel or commissioned officer whether on active or inactive duty has the right to file a grievence and have it heard up the chain of command. However, the individual's commanding officer has every right to hear such a grievence OR consider same "resolved" or "unsubstantiated", thus denying it altogether. And at that point, the issue is laid to rest; the grievence has been heard. He could appeal it, but there is a process in place whereby it is up to his immediate chain of command to hear his proposed case and act on it accordingly. But that doesn't mean that an individual in the military has the right to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court, per sa. That's ridiculous!! In this case, based on the evidence presented (or the lack of standing in this case), if I were Lt.Col Lakin's CO I'd deny his grievence mainly because the basis of his argument as I understand it does not in any way hamper his ability to perform his duties as assigned. Besides, he'd have to prove that the President is ineligible to be president. And since he cannot...CASE CLOSED...COURT MARTIAL ON!!!


You call 2 or 3 court cases by reserve officers an embarrassment? I call it derelection of duty and loonicy especially considering these are low ranking officers mainly from the inactive reserve corps. Now, if one of his high ranking officers within DoD had filed such a grievence on these same grounds (lack of confidence as you've pointed out) then I'd be worried.


Again, you are correct. That's why, IMO, I think Lt. Col Lakin's CO should drop kick this greivence all the way to this guy's court martial and throw the book at him for derelection of duty and conduct unbecoming.



My point in posting that information on the DNC and RNC wasn't to address how the military conducts its business, but rather to show how obsurd this entire birther argument really is. Candidates, especially those from the DNC, are vetted (and it appears more strengently than their RNC counterparts I might add) long before their names even go on the ballot. It's stupid to bring up the argument of a president's eligibility based on his citizenship long after he has been duly elected. There are procedures fully in place within each political committee to ensure their candidate is viable and qualified to run for office. Otherwise, we're talking THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY KNOWN TO MAN if Pres. Obama's U.S. citizenship isn't valid and hundreds of people KNOWINGLY involved. And if you've followed any of the birther threads on this board you'd know this issue has been proven moot. You and every other birther, truther, doubters, sore losers or whatever you're calling yourselves these days need to just give it up, get a life, find something else to bitch about because you're not getting this man out of office based on the perceived ineligibility of his U.S. citizenship.



You're completely misinterpreting the law. A soldier's grievance isn't heard by his chain of command, nor necessarily by his immediate commander. A soldier, enlisted or officer, have the right to have their grievance addressed by the commander that that soldier has the grievance with. That's what Article 138 specifically says. For further reference, read Chapter 10 of FM 27-1 where it says that a soldier's right to excercise Article 138 shall not be discouraged, nor interfeared with.
 
Where were they addressed? Please be specific. It appears to me that he was ignored and sent straight to a courts martial. I guess he had to be silenced, before he made too much noise.

Liberals are calling tea partiers seditious and court martialling anyone who dares question The One. This country is looking more and more like the Soviet Union, everyday.
Yeah that was addressing his grievance. They apparently took a look at the merits and denied his requests. That is addressing it.

He had to be silenced? He missed his movement. Are you suggesting that all soldiers should just disobey orders just because?

This country is looking like the soviet union? That has to be one of the most unamerican sore loser things I've ever seen you write.
 
You're completely misinterpreting the law. A soldier's grievance isn't heard by his chain of command, nor necessarily by his immediate commander. A soldier, enlisted or officer, have the right to have their grievance addressed by the commander that that soldier has the grievance with. That's what Article 138 specifically says. For further reference, read Chapter 10 of FM 27-1 where it says that a soldier's right to excercise Article 138 shall not be discouraged, nor interfeared with.

Can you point to any existing precedence where a soldier was allowed to have their grievance addressed directly by the president? Especially anyone below a general
 
Yeah that was addressing his grievance. They apparently took a look at the merits and denied his requests. That is addressing it.

He had to be silenced? He missed his movement. Are you suggesting that all soldiers should just disobey orders just because?

This country is looking like the soviet union? That has to be one of the most unamerican sore loser things I've ever seen you write.


So, the response, in your opinion, to his excercise of his rights is to court martial him? That's just nuts.

Can you point to any existing precedence where a soldier was allowed to have their grievance addressed directly by the president? Especially anyone below a general

How many soldiers refused to deploy because they felt that Iraq was an illegal war and how many of them were sent to prison for obviously being derelict in their duty? I await your answer. I seem to remember Libbos far and wide supporting their decisions. I bet you were one of them.
 
So, the response, in your opinion, to his excercise of his rights is to court martial him? That's just nuts.
No nuts is filing a grievance based on misinformation. Larkin has no proof of his accusations. He was court martialed for missing his movement not for exercising his rights to be a dick.

How many soldiers refused to deploy because they felt that Iraq was an illegal war and how many of them were sent to prison for obviously being derelict in their duty? I await your answer. I seem to remember Libbos far and wide supporting their decisions. I bet you were one of them.

I'm not a "libbo" there is no such thing as a libbo. Stop making up stupid words. Is a libbo someone who is a fan of Liberace? Maybe you'd fit into that category. I seem to recall about 8000 deserters of the Iraq war.

USATODAY.com - 8,000 desert during Iraq war

This is from 2006. So by your logic 8000 deserters would be an embarrassment to George Bush.

So far I've heard of 2 cases of soldiers refusing to deploy because of them being birthers.

Many of the deserters ended up returning some were arrested some were court martialed.

So is it your personal contention that if you hate the president you can just ignore orders? You don't get it even if Obama was ineligible, Lakin would still have no case as his orders were facially valid and came from his commanders.
 
Aside from the issue of this guy challenging the legitimacy of superiors, which is a disgrace to fundamental to military discipline, you have to wonder about a military officer that is willing to go on a suicide mission of which has zero probability of success and no real upside even if successful. Even if he believes this garbage (which makes me question his intelligence or at least stability), I would like to think our military officers know how to assess a battle and pick the right ones to fight.

They should run this guy out of the military just on his lack of judgment and questionable intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Aside from the issue of this guy challenging the legitimacy of superiors, which is a disgrace to fundamental to military discipline, you have to wonder about a military officer that is willing to go on a suicide mission of which has zero probability of success and no real upside even if successful. I don't know about you, but I'd like to think our officers have more intelligence than this and know how to pick the right battle to fight.

They should run this guy out of the military just on his lack of judgment and questionable intelligence.

When are the Libbos going to get the picture? It's a soldier's right to ask those questions.

But, instead, you all support persecuting anyone that dares question The Messiah.
 
When are the Libbos going to get the picture? It's a soldier's right to ask those questions.

But, instead, you all support persecuting anyone that dares question The Messiah.

No, it is not the solider's right to question the authority of his superiors, especially those several levels up the chain of command.
 
No nuts is filing a grievance based on misinformation. Larkin has no proof of his accusations. He was court martialed for missing his movement not for exercising his rights to be a dick.

That misinformation should be cleared up, once and for all.

I'm not a "libbo" there is no such thing as a libbo. Stop making up stupid words. Is a libbo someone who is a fan of Liberace? Maybe you'd fit into that category. I seem to recall about 8000 deserters of the Iraq war.

USATODAY.com - 8,000 desert during Iraq war

This is from 2006. So by your logic 8000 deserters would be an embarrassment to George Bush.

So far I've heard of 2 cases of soldiers refusing to deploy because of them being birthers.

Many of the deserters ended up returning some were arrested some were court martialed.

So is it your personal contention that if you hate the president you can just ignore orders? You don't get it even if Obama was ineligible, Lakin would still have no case as his orders were facially valid and came from his commanders.

Those 8 grand are just a buncha cowards.
 
No, it is not the solider's right to question the authority of his superiors, especially those several levels up the chain of command.

It is a soldier's right to question the authority of his superiors. You folks just don't get it, do you?
 
That misinformation should be cleared up, once and for all.
It has been cleared up over 60 times with cases continually dismissed. It was cleared up when congress certified the election. It was cleared up when Chief Justice Roberts swore him in.


Those 8 grand are just a buncha cowards.
And yet using your logic those 8,000 would be more of an embarrassment than the 2 people in the military questioning Obama's legitimacy.
 
It is a soldier's right to question the authority of his superiors. You folks just don't get it, do you?

Invalid orders. Not facially valid orders. They can question their commanders but where has there been precedence that someone like Lakin has a right to have his issues addressed by the president?

You don't get it apdst that's why he's being court martialed
 
It has been cleared up over 60 times with cases continually dismissed. It was cleared up when congress certified the election. It was cleared up when Chief Justice Roberts swore him in.

But, never once addressed by their commander. If Obama had any honor, he would address it himself, rather than letting lawyers and judges run interfearance for him.



And yet using your logic those 8,000 would be more of an embarrassment than the 2 people in the military questioning Obama's legitimacy.

They deserted because of their cowardice, not their concern about their commander's legitimate authority. Big difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom