[wideawake]

the president may not send American troops into possible combat under U.N. command without express authorization from Congress.

That's actually the opposite of what the Act says.

The attorneys also said that under the Constitution, no American soldier was obliged to answer to a military officer who was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Congress.

Congress does not have a Constitutional prerogative of confirming military officers in their command.

The President, as Commander-In-Chief, and pursuant to the Act, may place US military personnel under any UN command - since all US military personnel are ultimately responsible to the President, who may withdraw them from UN action at any time.

forcing him to serve under an international army he never signed up with abridged the ex-soldier's rights against "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment

When he volunteered for military service, the laws governing US participation in UN missions were in full effect. This is perhaps New's most laughable argument.

Their final claim was that American soldiers could not accept the U.N. caps and shoulder patches under a constitutional provision that prohibits federal officials from taking "emoluments" from a foreign government.

This is the second most laughable. A UN cover or shoulder patch is not an "emolument" any more than a US soldier in WWII eating in a British mess was receiving a foreign "emolument" in the form of beans and toast.

Did clinton get authorization from congress?

Indeed he did.

Before he was born.

BTW, what Constitutional arguments did New's attorneys make when he was convicted of stealing a doctor's prescription pads and forging prescriptions for narcotics?

Does the Constitution recognize special rights for junkies?

[processing please hold]

That's actually the opposite of what the Act says.

Then what exactly does the act say?

Congress does not have a Constitutional prerogative of confirming military officers in their command.

So you're saying that if the un force was commanded under Kim Jong Il, our soldiers would under obligation to follow his orders?

When he volunteered for military service, the laws governing US participation in UN missions were in full effect. This is perhaps New's most laughable argument.

Is that pointed out when they hand out the 'you joined the military' handbook. I wasn't aware of it but ignorance of the law is no excuse. I wonder how many soldiers aren't aware of that?

I think I understand you now. You defend jihadist bullies, you support the un, you support American soldiers taking orders from non US military leaders. Is that all? Are you an American or are you posting from another country?