[quote=pabloesqobar]What you didn’t quote from the article:

Because he’s a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can “ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.

Doesn’t seem like such a big deal. There won’t be tens of thousands of reservists volunteering for active duty only to ask for a revocation prior to deploying because they don’t believe Obama is not legit. I’m surprised you came to that conclusion. Scattered revolts? Where are you getting this? You’re a lawyer, right?[/quote]

You need to learn to look more closely at facts and think more than two steps ahead, Pablo. Lawyers are trained to ask follow-up questions, so let me ask you a few that you apparently haven’t considered: I suppose we don’t need reservists for a functioning military that is currently experiencing decreasing enlistments due to bogus wars. Is that your position? And I suppose it’s irrelevant that other military personnel share Cook’s position and will likely present the same challenge, thereby thrusting this issue more into the public eye and off the backburner? Does the fact that a reservist can “ask” for a revocation necessarily mean that one will automatically be granted – when the Army is cycling soldiers back into tour so fast that they barely have furloughs anymore? I think you are assuming a fact not in evidence, and experience and common sense should tell you that something that is requested of any branch of the U.S government will not simply be granted – without a reason or an explanation. For the Army to grant a revocation to any officer – reservist or enlisted – during war time when resources are stretched so thin, and to do so without any explanation or other response, doesn’t seem unusual to you?

Do you really think we need tens of thousands of revolting reservists in order for this issue to become problematic constitutionally? And the most important question you have failed to ask: if this is such a no-brainer and a trivial matter due to Cook’s reserve status…then why is a court opting to hear this case on the merits? Following your logic, there would simply be no need to because “he’s just a reservist and had the right to ask for a revocation. Right?

Look, the reason I posted these articles is not because I expect the military to suddenly cave and walk away en masse from Obama, leaving only a few sailors in a tugboat taking his orders. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer, but surely you understand the reason that ALL previous challenges to Obama’s eligibility have failed, don’t you? The courts have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs have lacked “standing”. Do you understand what that means? It means that federal courts feel that no person or body — other than Congress or Obama — has the legal right to raise this issue in a legal forum. What the Cook case does, however, is present a huge wrinkle for Obama because NOW the case will be heard on the merits, which is something the administration has spent millions of dollars to prevent from ever happening. It will be very interesting to see the next steps taken by the administration to counter this. Because at this point, you’d really have to believe that it would be a helluva lot easier to simply produce the requested documentation rather than endure more of these challenges to our Commander-in-Chief.

But maybe you’d have to be a lawyer to understand that 😉