Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dread78645
The issue for me would be the wording of the enlistment contract. If that contract grants authority to extend the contract to the Federal government at the discretion of the President, then there can be no beef on the part of the soldier. All commissioned officers, of course, recognize that they serve at the discretion of the President -- who can activate them or inactivate them so long as the commission has not been resigned.

But the bottom line is whether a soldier's enlistment contract contains an explicit extension authorization or cites relevant law that grants extension authorization.

If so, then, tough luck. You signed it.

If it doesn't, then this man should be permitted to exit service. Congress then should pass laws granting that extension authorization because it is in the national interest for the President to have that authority to keep units together or keep certain skills in time of war or other crisis.

17 posted on 08/18/2004 4:59:24 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Supporting Bush/Cheney 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins

"But the bottom line is whether a soldier's enlistment contract contains an explicit extension authorization or cites relevant law that grants extension authorization."

I heard a short analysis of his suit which indicated; the power to extend enlistment contracts need to be in either (1) a time of war (declared by Congress), or (2) in a time of 'national emergency' (again a formal declaration must exist), and that this extension is in violation of those particulars. I'm not sure about the contract specifics or the suit, I'm working on partial-at best information which is being filtered by both sides.

I would hope there is someone here that knows more about the specifics concerning the legal issues involved.


26 posted on 08/18/2004 6:09:02 AM PDT by familyofman (and the first animal is jettisoned - legs furiously pumping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; Protect the Bill of Rights; familyofman; wasp69; All
If that contract grants authority to extend the contract to the Federal government at the discretion of the President, then there can be no beef on the part of the soldier.

After looking over the replies, I did some googling.

Quick time-lime:

1792 - 1861 Only Congress had the power to call up the militia. Lincoln's order in 1861 for 75,000 state militia was probably unconstitutional, so far as they served outside their respective states.
1865 - 1903 Congress enacts Posse Comitatus to limit the Presidents use of the Army in "peacetime"; no biggie since Congress still guarded its power to declare war.
1903 - 1916 The Dick Act places the state militias firmly under the regular forces as reserves.
1916 - 1920 National Defense Act gave the President authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. Also gave the National Guard a representative in the General Staff.
1933 - present National Guard Mobilization Act made the National Guard of the United States a component of the Army at all times, which could be ordered into active federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.

So up till 1916, he would've appeared to have case.
Under current law, based on the Sept. 24 declaration, the the Executive has the power to mobilize the NG for the duration.

Game over, Sgt. John Doe.

57 posted on 08/18/2004 2:04:04 PM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson