Posted on 03/07/2006 4:49:48 PM PST by SandRat
WASHINGTON, March 7, 2006 – Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that military recruiters must have as equal access as other organizations to meet with students on college and university campuses is a matter of fairness, a military official said here today.
The court's decision upholds a law that eliminates federal funding for colleges and universities that ban military recruiters from conducting their business on campus.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Defense Department said the Solomon Amendment, which says military recruiters must have equal access to students like that enjoyed by corporate recruiters and other organizations, said the law was unconstitutional and violated the right of free speech.
"DoD is not asking for any special treatment, and it isn't trying to suppress free speech in any way," Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Defense Department spokeswoman, told American Forces Press Service. "We simply want to be able to compete on an even playing field for the best and brightest that our nation's universities have to offer."
About 2,500 law students are interviewed by DoD recruiters each year, Krenke said, of which about 400 become military lawyers.
Krenke said the Supreme Court's decision won't affect military recruiting on most college and university campuses, because most were already complying with the Solomon Amendment. Only three schools have had their federal funding denied because of noncompliance with the Solomon law, she said.
Before the late New York Rep. Gerald Solomon introduced his legislation in Congress in 1994, a total of 12 colleges and law schools had banned military recruiters from their campuses, while others announced they might do the same.
The crux of the plaintiffs' case against DoD centered on the argument that the military discriminates against homosexual servicemembers' free speech rights because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy adopted militarywide in 1994.
That policy prevents military officials from discharging homosexuals simply on the basis of suspicion of sexual orientation. In this environment, officials aren't to ask servicemembers of their sexual leanings, while homosexuals aren't required to disclose such information.
Krenke said DoD's don't ask, don't tell policy is a federal law. "It's not just a DoD policy. For it to be changed there must be a change to the law," she said.
Let them try. So long as they stand out of the way and just protest; not blocking the recruiters or access of those who wish to see the recruiters they are ok. If however they impede the recruiters now they fall under this:
U.S. Code
TITLE 18
PART I
CHAPTER 115
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
Yes we are legally at war both the WAR on Terror and Against the Same folks in IRAQ and in Iraq to begin with as APPROVED BY both the HOUSE and THE SENATE by a CLEAR OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of votes from each Chamber.
Got it, thanks for posting that. I am going to bookmark it.
That law only applies following a formal declaration of war which is precisely why the dems in the senate only gave the President an authorization of force and stopped short of full war (not that it makes any difference to the soldiers on the ground).
What does a formal declaration looks like? Is there a specified format contained in the constitution? For the provisions of Art 2 of the constitution to be valid for President Bush as Commander In Chief in time of War, we are at War. That's one the SCOTUS is most likely going to have to rule on I believe rather quickly. If not on the recruiter bit, then on the NSA actions.
Quite so. If these universities want to have "We Oppose The War" booths and speakers in juxtaposition to the dod, they may. Alternatively they can get their hands out of Uncle Sam's pocket.
The fags in these law schools sort of won in that they kept military recruiters of campus for years while their universities (such as Harvard) still received Federal grants and funds. So as a delaying tactic the gay oriented law schools did just great
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.