Posted on 08/11/2016 5:50:45 PM PDT by Libloather
That means that a Chaplin will be gone or what he says will be screened and redacted.
And the crucifix headstone will be replaced with something PC.
Also, I am reminded of Patton's letter to his troops during the Battle of the Bulge...
To an extent it does and always has included military housing and the barracks. They are military property. Barracks rooms are not college dorms. They are inspected regularly. They must conform to certain standards. Generally, you aren’t allowed to hang anything on the walls. There are areas in your locker that are designated for personal use. Depending on your base you could have 1 or more roomates.
Military housing are less stringent, however you can’t hang/post signs or symbols on the outside of the structure. The outside grounds are inspected regularly. You are also responsible for your dependants behavior.
.
>> “The court rightfully saw through her ruse.” <<
There was no ruse.
Her actions had no affect on any mission. She was subjected to an unlawful order by any measure in US law.
.
When I was in the Navy, the only place you were allowed personalize the inside of your locker. Even there, you had to be careful of the content of photo’s you displayed.
Agreed.
Several issues:
Except that that law was made under Congress’ authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Which provides it authority to make rules for the governance of land and naval forces.
Congress has broad authority to ensure the good order and discipline of the armed forces. This Marine had other avenues to redress her grievance, she chose to disobey a lawful (if unwise and petty) order.
The courts have long recognized this. Military organizations are inherently different from civil society. Long experience shows us that good order and discipline require obedience, enforced by punitive action. When you join the military, therefore you voluntarily surrender a portion of your rights. For example, you may criticize the President in private (or anonymously), but if you do it publicly, you will be disciplined and/or dismissed from the service.
You are being ridiculous. When you sign the dotted line you literally give your life to the government. They make promises to feed, clothe, shelter, train and provide medical care. You promise to do what you are told.
That’s it.
If a person decides to not do what they are told then they face the consquences of thier actions. Nothing more, nothing less. This has nothing to do with religion or freedom of speech or constitutional rights.
However, this may not be allowed in the future. The trend is in this direction.
That is why I always chose to live off post. I don’t appreciate having to modify my behavior and lifestyle to suit the whims of a Garrison Commander.
On the flip side, when I was a commander, we did do welfare checks off post, but our scope and authority were limited. One of my peers visited a Soldier’s off post apartment, realized that it was a disgusting overpriced, run-down slum, and with the JAG’s help, broke the lease and the Army paid to move him to a better place on post.
That authority is not unlimited, in fact the preamble of the Bill of Rights specifically says that:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.The very act of amending is to alter, so even if the power of Art 1, Sec 8 were unlimited originally, the later amendment limiting the power would apply and the power would no longer be unlimited.
Congress has broad authority to ensure the good order and discipline of the armed forces. This Marine had other avenues to redress her grievance, she chose to disobey a lawful (if unwise and petty) order.
Broad authority is not unlimited; see the above.
The courts have long recognized this.
The courts are wrong.
Simply and completely wrong — the reasoning I gave was simple, unmistakable, and correct:
abridging the freedom of speech.
Military organizations are inherently different from civil society. Long experience shows us that good order and discipline require obedience, enforced by punitive action. When you join the military, therefore you voluntarily surrender a portion of your rights.
Nobody here is saying that becoming military does not mean that you do not agree to constraints; however, you are asserting these constraints are superior to even the Constitution.
She is subject to the UCMJ. The UCMJ is the governing authority in the military justice system. A military courts martial determined she was guilty of insubordination.
Instead of doing what she was told she is now a felon.
Oh, thanks for the clarification.
I’ll have to let someone else answer that question, I can’t.
The Constitution is to constrain government, and is the authority to which you swear allegiance to, if you simply allow the government to violate the constraints placed upon it are you not then an Oathbreaker?
I agree. If all were to have totally clear desks/areas with no personal displays whatsoever, then this Marine was wrong to go counter to that.
If, however, others were permitted to have personal items, then hers was selected for content discrimination.
The exception to that is ‘verse picking’. For example, if she’d been in a struggle with her superior officer and posted a scripture that addressed the struggle between herself and her supervisor, then it would not be content discrimination, but instead it would be addressing insubordination.
I don’t know the case that well, but I do have 24+ years active duty, most of it as a Chaplain.
I also swore to obey the office of the president and orders of officers appointed over me per regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
You have to read the entire oath.
I did — it's obvious that the latter elements (president, lawful orders) are dependent on the former (the Constitution).
What you are asserting, albeit implicitly, is that the President and 'Laws' are of higher authority than the Constitution.
“This is true; but the underlying assumption is that the order is lawful — so the the question becomes this: is it? “
My post was not to this specific charge but to a generic issue that military lose some rights.
OTOH, she is also in trouble for failing to report for duty.
“This is true; but the underlying assumption is that the order is lawful — so the the question becomes this: is it? “
It’s a freakin’ military base.
I’m not asserting. It is a fact. Your rights are restricted. No question. The UCMJ is the governing authority. Don’t like it, don’t sign the paper. I can tell you from experience they will tell you as much on your first day of basic training.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.