Former DOD Inspector Gen: Panetta’s Directive May be Unconstitutional

http://www.newsmax.com ^ | January 23, 2013 | Paul Scicchitano

[NKP_Vet]

Reacting to reports that outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is lifting the Pentagon’s long-standing ban on women serving in combat, former DOD Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz tells Newsmax that he believes the decision will lead to a “degradation of good order and discipline” and may even be unconstitutional.

Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

“Introducing mixed gender combat units in my experience and judgment will inevitably lead to a degradation of good order and discipline,” asserted Schmitz, a recognized constitutional expert who held the position of DOD’s top investigator from April 2002 to September 2005 after 27 years of Naval Service, including four years at the Naval Academy, five years of active duty in the fleet, and 18 years in the Naval Reserve.

Schmitz tells Newsmax that it is questionable under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution whether Panetta has the authority to make such a change to America’s “land and naval forces,” since this authority is specifically granted to Congress.

[I want the USA back]

This is stupid. It is nothing more than destroying the military as a fighting force under the guise of “equality.”

[Girlene]

Well said.

[philetus]

Leon Panetta : “LOOK OVER HERE at what we’re doing”.

[PapaBear3625]

From what I understand, Panetta will give women the option of being in combat forces, i.e., they will have to volunteer. This sounds like a double standard. Do men have the same option?

I can see a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of men in the military.

[PapaBear3625]

(Reparations Draft = Draft ONLY women for the Armed Services until the total number of women who have services since Women’s Suffrage passed equals the total number of men who have served since then. Equal Rights necessitates Equal Responsibilities)

Better: declare that women will be affirmatively-assigned to combat/hazardous jobs until female casualty rates match male casualty rates. It's only fair.

[Theoria]

You are correct. Congress sets and establishes the rules and regulations of the military. I know some R's and D's voice and urge a king, or sometimes a unitarian Executive, but that is nonsense Constitutionally.

[rollo tomasi]

It's a political trap, lol. Repubs shoot this down, the dems will point their crooked fingers and exclaim "Anti-female, misogynists pigs."

Smart move would to exceed female requirements and match them with the males in order to serve the front lines. Next, require that every female between the ages of 18-35 to register for selective service or face a penalty of $250,000.

Smile and point out that we Republicans are against females on the front line, but since the Democrat Party and the current administration are heel bent at sending mothers and daughters to die on the front lines, we want those females to be prepared physically as well as emotionally and in the name of equality, want every female of draft age to join their male counterparts at the opportunity of conscription.

[Fu-fu2]

#13—great post. I’m not surprised by this. Hollywood has been portraying 100 pound starlets beating the crap out of men twice their size for some time. My husband commented that its dangerous, some young girls may actually believe they can do it.

It also reminds me of the push to match funding for womens sports on the university level with that of mens sports, which bring in huge sums of money for the university. The experience of people I know has been that it brought in an over-representation of lesbian women to college sport. So maybe this is part of that same thinking. I agree with Mark Levin that women would legally need to become part of the draft, at least have to register like men do. I don’t think suburban moms who support “feminism” would like to see their daughters threatened with the possibility of frontline military service.

[bert]

There is more than one way to skin a cat. The skinning of a live cat is problematic, but it might at least be attempted.

If the left wing anti military, social services types are polled one might learn that many desire women in combat rolls.

Any rational person, and especially those women who have tried but failed to pass muster know that women lack the physical traits necessary.

So, issue an edict making women eligible for combat. The edict will be challenged and in court before it can be implemented. The edict might be overturned on constitutional grounds thus relieving the jug eared one of the responsibility. He made the effort by having a wornout party hack issue the edict on leaving office. The departing party can’t be harmed because he is gone.

it may take a while and of course paying off lawyers and judges and all the court hangers on, but the cat will be skinned

[Jimmy Valentine]

It has been a long while, but if my memory is working, standard combat load including weapon and ammunition is about 100LBS.

That is a considerable load for an average sized woman.

Also what about the prospective casualty rate among both men and women?

The Russians tried women in line units and abandoned the idea as unworkable.

[treetopsandroofs]

I laugh at the leftist o-holes who tell me “Stop watching Fox News” and reply, “You really think Fox is right wing?!”

The answer is always yes, because that’s what they hear other leftist o-holes say.

[NKP_Vet]

“The Russians tried women in line units and abandoned the idea as unworkable”

So did the Israelis. Not even Hitler was tried this BS. Women were in support roles in Nazi Army.

[sassy steel magnolia]

ditto. Just remember, this earth is only our temporary home, not our permanent residence! He has gone before us to prepare our homes, and He will come back for us! Jesus fulfills prophecies and keeps His promises.

Peace to you and your family & blessings!

[BluH2o]

“The Russians tried women in line units and abandoned the idea as unworkable”

In WWII Russian female snipers were very effective ... Pavlichenko in particular with 309 confirmed kills ... with a number closer to 500 in actual kills.

[TheBattman]

[skeeter]

In all sincerity, thanks - thats just what I needed to hear.

[flaglady47]

Actually, snipers is about the only field I would let women participate in. Many women have good aim. As to the rest, keep them out. This could be a fine example of be careful what you wish for as you may get it. All these women thinking they are feminazi’s screaming for equal rights on the front lines. Well, let’s see how much they actually try to get those positions now that the choice of becoming battle hardened will be a reality. I suspect 90% or more of women in the services are actually secretly horrified at being presented with this option.

You aren’t going to see many volunteers, and amongst the ones that do, most will fail to pass the physical requirements for front line service. The whole thing is a big joke, as the ladies on the front line will all soon find out. Hah, the Obama regime has inadverdently called their bluff. Most of the ones that are itching to fight are the dykes anyhow. Well, let’s see how the ladies feel after a goodly number of their kind get picked off in battle, or captured, tortured, and/or raped. Won’t be so much fun then to be “one of the boys”, because they’re not.

[Arlis]

Solution for this is very simple.

Simply make women fight in all-female units only. All male units. All female units. No morale degradation for the male units.

Female units? No female would join one! Every woman would know that would be suicidal - or a welcome-mat for rape by any enemy........

[Bigg Red]

You have nailed the goal — cripple the military.

[Eagles6]

You got it.