Posted on 08/11/2016 5:50:45 PM PDT by Libloather
Marine who was court-martialed after putting up Bible verse at her desk loses First Amendment appeal in 'outrageous' federal court decision
A Marine who was court-martialed after refusing to take biblical verses down from her desk has lost her federal appeal, in a decision her representative called 'outrageous'.
Marine Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling lost a 2014 court-martial at her base in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, based in part on her refusal to remove the verses.
She challenged that action but was told Wednesday that she had lost the case after it was ruled that the order was not a 'substantial burden' on her First Amendment rights, Fox News reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
>> “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.
On most military bases the keeping and bearing of arms is [essentially] prohibited — the second amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” — is the policy in accordance with the Constitution, or contrary to it?
You are asserting.
Your rights are restricted. No question. The UCMJ is the governing authority.
What authority establishes the UCMJ?
I can tell you from experience they will tell you as much on your first day of basic training.
And just because someone tells you something makes it true?
Was Nixon right when he said When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
?
You can keep speaking from text. I can tell you from 20 years of real experience. While you parse words there are real people, following orders, that if they didn’t would jeopardize the way of life you have the privilege to live.
It’s called sacrifice. There are millions of veterans who willing signed the dotted line knowing the consquences.
You obviously have a problem with it. I wouldn’t recommend military service for you. Your attitude would get people killed. Don’t take it as an insult military service isn’t for everyone.
I do recommend watching some videos on YouTube about Paris Island. It may open your eyes.
And to answer your constitutional question, the Constitution, as you said, protects rights from government intrusion. If you decide to take the oath, you become “The Government”. There must be a secondary and overriding governance that prevents “The Government” from abusing the oath and the powers associated with them as well as to maintain order and dlicipline in peace and wartime. Remember an American serviceman is subject to war crimes. The UCMJ is that governing authority.
EF: Incorrect, first and foremost enlisted pledge their allegiance to the Constitution, and that takes up a good 2/3rds of the oath.
Don't be tedious - officers don't swear allegiance to the President or officers, while enlisted do. Both swear to uphold the Constitution, I didn't say they don't. I was pointing out the difference between the two oaths.
Can you serve the Constitution by working against the rights that it guarantees? If so, how? — Give two examples.
Why two? Are you a proctor? Is this a test or a discussion? Do you even understand the difference between a right and a privilege? There's your answer right there. Apply it as many times as you want. Just because you can't parse legal terms doesn't make me wrong. Do you have a drivers license? Why? Under the Constitution you have a right to freely travel. Do you bring your hand gun into movie theaters? No? Why not? Don't you believe in the Second Amendment? There's two examples of privileges enforced over rights by consent, proctor. Do you even comprehend the answer? And I'm not even discussing the military yet. How do you think military discipline is enforced? By vote?
Question: which rights cannot be sold/bartered/given away?
Here's a better question, proctor: which rights DON'T you have the right to sell/barter/give away. Bonus question: what power denies you power over whatever you want to do with your rights? Where, in other words, are the limits of the right to free contract?
She had a history of insubordination; refusal to obey orders including refusing to report for duty as assigned* and refusal to wear a proper uniform while on duty as ordered (allegedly over a back injury that she claimed making her wear a C (Charlie) uniform too uncomfortable, that she had a chit exempting her from wearing one but the chit didn’t make any such an exception and this was confirmed by the medical officer) and on numerous occasions she showed open disrespect and hostility toward her commanding officers and toward her fellow Marines which caused a breakdown of military order and morale, so the court martial was over more than the posting of the Bible verses on the computer workstation - BTW in 3 different places and on a workstation that she shared with other Marines.
And the verse she posted was “No weapon formed against you shall prosper” except she changed it to “No weapon formed against me shall prosper” and by her own admission during her court martial, was something she posted because she thought people were picking on her. Sterling told military officials that the posted passage helped her summon patience when dealing with short-tempered Marines who were frustrated with their CAC problems (her desk job was handling complaints from other Marines experiencing issues with their Common Access Cards). It was deemed to be more of an expression of hostility rather than an expression of religious faith. Furthermore, when her CO ordered her to remove the signs she refused, and when he took them down, she put them back up, but she did not go through proper channels (up the chain of command) for objecting to the CO’s order – she simply refused to obey them.
Here is the court martial doc:
http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2015/STERLING-201400150-UNPUB.PDF
* Failing to go to an appointed pace of duty is a general intent crime. Therefore, any mistake of fact must be both honest and reasonable While the appellant may have offered some evidence at trial that she honestly believed that DE A’s recommended limitations exempted her from standing duty, the evidence indicating that this belief was unreasonable was substantial. To begin with, the plain language of DE A makes it clear that the limitations are “recommendations.” While we recognize that medically-recommended duty limitations are routinely adopted by commanders, there is no evidence in the record to support a reasonable belief that these recommendations were “orders.” Moreover, the appellant conceded that her inability to stand duty would have been caused by her taking a medication as a proactive measure to prevent the onset of migraines. The appellant introduced evidence that the medication could produce side effects including dizziness, drowsiness, “alert issues,” and numbness in hands, feet, and tongue, and was therefore prescribed to be taken at night. However, while admitting that she normally took the medication as prescribed, the appellant insisted that she had to take the medication hours earlier on 15 September 2013 because she would be attending church services, which she believed could trigger a migraine. Therefore, because she planned to take the medication by the time her appointed duty would have commenced, she concluded that she could not report to her appointed place of duty.
So she admitted to not taking her migraine medication as proscribed and used that as an excuse not to report to duty as ordered.
She had no grounds to appeal the other refusal to obey orders charges on which she was convicted so she played the “Persecuted Christian Card” over the Bible (or more accurately the “Don’t Pick On Me”) verse. I’m guessing that her CO was perhaps Black so she couldn’t pull the “Black Card”.
She was simply not Marine Corps material and it was IMO a good thing that she got booted. But with her attitude problems, she may well have a future working at the DMV. Have fun renewing your driver’s license or registration.
Oh but we do because we, at least I, am not on active duty. I have all the standing needed to condemn anyone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You’re welcome. :)
Is it incorrect?
Please show where and how.
> I can tell you from 20 years of real experience. While you parse words there are real people, following orders, that if they didn’t would jeopardize the way of life you have the privilege to live.
Ah, so now you claim that life is a privilege; the Declaration of Independence would say otherwise.
(How long until you argue that the "privilege of life" can be revoked arbitrarily by the government?)
> It’s called sacrifice. There are millions of veterans who willing signed the dotted line knowing the consquences.
>
> You obviously have a problem with it. I wouldn’t recommend military service for you. Your attitude would get people killed. Don’t take it as an insult military service isn’t for everyone.
I have no problem with sacrifice — I do have a problem with both false claims to authority and the willingness to discard the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) in favor of tradition and/or judicial fiat.
BTW, I already put my time in, so take your condescending assumptions elsewhere.
The Oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
While a military court will not deny her 1st Amendment rights,she violated her oath.
” These regulations, like the Army regulation in Spock, protect a substantial Government interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974). The military is, “by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 743 (1974). Military personnel must be ready to perform their duty whenever the occasion arises. Ibid. To ensure that they always are capable of performing their mission promptly and reliably, the military services “must insist upon a respect for duty and a discipline without counterpart in civilian life.” Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 757 (1975); see Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 367 -368 (1976).
“`Speech that is protected in the civil population may . . . undermine the effectiveness of response to command.’” Parker v. Levy, supra, at 759, quoting United States v. Priest, 21 U.S.C. M. A. 564, 570, 45 C. M. R. 338, 344 (1972). Thus, while members of the military services are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment, “the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S., at 758 . The rights of military men must yield somewhat “`to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty. . . .’” Id., at 744, quoting Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 140 (1953) (plurality opinion). 10 Speech likely to interfere with these vital prerequisites for military effectiveness therefore can be excluded from a military base. Spock, [444 U.S. 348, 355] 424 U.S., at 840 ; id., at 841 (BURGER, C. J., concurring); id., at 848 (POWELL, J., concurring).”
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/348.html
To repeat for emphasis:
“The rights of military men must yield somewhat “`to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty. . . .’” Id., at 744, quoting Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 140 (1953) (plurality opinion). 10 Speech likely to interfere with these vital prerequisites for military effectiveness therefore can be excluded from a military base.”
Also:
“In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974). This quote from the Court sums up what is known as the Doctrine of Military Necessity or the military-deference doctrine.
Though it did not become entrenched in modern legal thought until the Levy case in 1974, the view of the military as a separate community, where constitutional freedoms can be applied differently, was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1953. Ruling in Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 (1953), the Court said: “The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters.”
And:
“In 1986, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed the appeals court decision against Goldman. Justice William Rehnquist, writing the opinion for the Court, noted that Goldman argued for the Court to analyze the Air Force regulation under the standard the Court had used in an earlier, non-military related, free-exercise case. This standard required the government to show a compelling interest to justify restricting a citizen’s free-exercise right. The need to show a compelling interest involves a higher standard of scrutiny and is a more difficult standard to reach.
Rehnquist rejected applying this standard in Goldman’s case, saying, “[W]e have repeatedly held that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society. Our review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society.” The Court held that the military was the best judge of whether a particular regulation was proper and that courts are “ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/military-speech
When I was in the military, a pretty common restriction was not to discuss politics or religion while on duty. Why? Because those can seriously affect morale and unit cohesion. I was in one squadron where several enlisted members believed GWB was not really elected President and that they could therefor refuse to deploy to combat.
I’m a Baptist and generally approve of discussing religious beliefs - but not while on duty, in uniform. It just created too much bitterness and anger. But I’m only a military brat who spent 25 years on active duty, so what do I know?
I’m sorry you took honesty for condescension. I said in my post I wasn’t being insulting.
You are trying to make an argument, but your words display an ignorance of the the military judicial system. You are entitled to your views, however they run contrary to sound established military doctrine.
People, to include the mentioned marine, who have a problem with authority have no business in the military. They will find themselves in trouble rather quickly.
Thank you for your service.
.
>> “That’s it.” <<
Except that is not constitutional America.
What it is, is the result of a nation of sheep.
See post 113, but in case you don’t here is what Chief Justice Renquist wrote:
” The Court held that the military was the best judge of whether a particular regulation was proper and that courts are “ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have.”
The UCMJ not the Constitution is the governing authority when it comes to the rights of Military personnel.
We don’t conscript our military forces. It a 100% volunteer. If someone feels strongly about having thier constitutional rights restrained they shouldn’t take the oath. If someone does and tries to violate thier oath, like this marine, they will be dealt with harshly.
All she had to do was to do what she was told. Instead she is now a convicted felon.
You are wrong.
The Constitution is the authority on what the congress can do (in its legislation) and there is no bypass for the military.
In fact a standing army (infantry) is not permitted by the constitution.
The courts became halls of thugs long before we were born.
You might want to reread Article I section 8 and Article II section 2.
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.