Is the military UCMJ constitutional?

[tnvoter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

http://www.ucmj.us/

Or is it one of those things that our founders simply didn't get to yet?

[Vessol]

Well considering that a standing army is unconstitutional, I don't see how the UCMJ can be constitutional.

[Monarchist]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14

[HOLLYWOOD]

UCMJ and the US military are a prefect example of a Marxist/Socialist/Communistic type society... but it's all legit, because you apparently, sign your all rights away and over to the DOD to decide your faith.

All the rest is frigin propaganda and government BS.

[tnvoter]

UCMJ and the US military are a prefect example of a Marxist/Socialist/Communistic type society... but it's all legit, because you apparently, sign your all rights away and over to the DOD to decide your faith.

All the rest is frigin propaganda and government BS.

That's not it though, the oath is taken to the Constitution- sooo.... hence the forming of oath keepers. & Clearly even as RP stated about his military service, not every service member is equipped to be there own lawyer (especially at a young age).

[Knightskye]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14


To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

Yep, it's constitutional.

[tnvoter]

Yep, it's constitutional.

The question is do those regulations made, contradict the Constitution?

[Philhelm]

Interesting question, but regardless of people's views of the military, our current operations, and the opinion of standing armies, I think a little bit of common sense is needed here. The military should never be compared to the citizenry as a whole, in my opinion (assuming an all volunteer force, mind you). An extra level of discipline and I dare say subserviance is necessary for a fighting force. We can't have soldiers deciding to abandon the next engagement on the grounds of involuntary servitude because they want to quit at that moment, or any other scenario we can such as that. Also, it's important to note that with our current volunteer service, it's a contractual agreement. I have no problem with soldiers not having as many rights as the citizenry so long as it pertains to the actual performance of their duties, and so long as it is a voluntary force.

Having said that, I do believe that they should be allowed some constitutional protections, such as due process, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Forced labor contracts are perfectly ok and enforceable if you are the state. If the people do it then it's civil war.

[libertarian4321]

Having said that, I do believe that they should be allowed some constitutional protections, such as due process, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc.

While soldiers don't get the full rights of civilians, there is a pretty good military justice system to make sure they are treated fairly. There are no summary executions or imprisonments the way you have in some armies.

If charged with a serious offense, you even get a lawyer provided.

[Philhelm]

While soldiers don't get the full rights of civilians, there is a pretty good military justice system to make sure they are treated fairly. There are no summary executions or imprisonments the way you have in some armies.

If charged with a serious offense, you even get a lawyer provided.

I'm aware of that, and have served in the military. When I said they should have rights, I didn't mean that they don't have rights, but that there are rights they should have, regarding this discussion of the military as it pertains to the Constitution. I personally don't have a problem with military personnel, so long as service is due to a contractual agreement, having some of their rights waived out of military necessity.

[Promontorium]

A blow job from your wife in your own home is punishable by prison under the UCMJ. Any sexual contact other than penis to vaginal intercourse is considered "sodomy," and is forbidden in all circumstances.

I don't like the mixed government style, libertarians often support the government's "right" to have contract obligations (including giving up claim to rights), justified under the libertarian ideal that adults should be able to make that choice. But where the hell is the other side of the coin? Where in America can the libertarian opt out? You're hanging yourselves, defending the system's increased restrictions while watching the other side, the liberty you claim exists, disappear.

Simple fact, the government no longer has any sense of liberty or rights, they don't need the libertarian's consent to set up optional higher restrictions, those options are just the coming mandatory laws coming softly upon the people from every angle, and the libertarian welcomes the restrictions, by the time the option becomes mandatory, it's too late.

I do not think the major threat to liberty of the people is coming from the UCMJ, but the UCMJ is a perfect example of this blind support libertarians give to anything the federal government does as long as there's some initial option by the individual, meanwhile that's not at all what the federal government is doing, your illusion of liberty that you think people have to opt in or out of these restrictions are just the fringe of the beast. It's like a thief panhandling in front of your house until he's ready to rob you, you know he's going to rob you, yet you praise his capability to give you the option of turning over all your possessions before he comes in the night. He's an asshole. Stop praising the thief.

[libertarian4321]

A blow job from your wife in your own home is punishable by prison under the UCMJ. Any sexual contact other than penis to vaginal intercourse is considered "sodomy," and is forbidden in all circumstances.



You'd be surprised how many states/localities still have those laws on the books- but they aren't enforced- and it's not enforced in the military either.

I'm pretty sure soldiers are receiving and enjoying blow jobs pretty frequently :)

[fisharmor]

An extra level of discipline and I dare say subserviance is necessary for a fighting force. We can't have soldiers deciding to abandon the next engagement on the grounds of involuntary servitude because they want to quit at that moment, or any other scenario we can such as that.

Yet the people we're fighting right now have no particular subservience to anyone, they're free to abandon engagements, and even if there was a contract, there's no state that will imprison them if they break it.
Yet here we are, coming up on year 8, with no clear victory.
It sure seems like the model you're describing isn't the only model out there, and isn't even the only successful model.


Well considering that a standing army is unconstitutional, I don't see how the UCMJ can be constitutional.

This will never be said often or loudly enough. Our current model bears too many resemblances to the one the founding fathers intentionally tried to avoid.

[johngr]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

Compared to the language providing for a navy (sing.), to wit, "maintain", it looks to me like armies (pl.) raised would be disbanded after the (declared) wars they were raised for were fought to conclusion. Note also the time limit of appropriation.

[fisharmor]

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

Compared to the language providing for a navy (sing.), to wit, "maintain", it looks to me like armies (pl.) raised would be disbanded after the (declared) wars they were raised for were fought to conclusion. Note also the time limit of appropriation.

And this is just another way in which the 17th Amendment hopelessly broke the entire system.
If state legislatures were represented in the federal government, as they once were,
and if Senators weren't basically for sale via campaign contributions from defense contractors (campaigns that wouldn't even happen if they were chosen by state legislatures),
then I seriously doubt this level of spending in the face of no clear military threat would ever pass the senate, let alone continue to pass every two years in perpetuity.

[erowe1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

http://www.ucmj.us/

Or is it one of those things that our founders simply didn't get to yet?

What do you mean about the founders not getting to it yet? Since it's in Article 1, Section 8, it's constitutional. Right?

[pcosmar]

Can someone how under the UCMJ this guy took the 5th?

http://home.millsaps.edu/mcelvrs/Ollie_North.jpg

The lack of explanation may explain something.
:mad:

[oyarde]

Interesting question, but regardless of people's views of the military, our current operations, and the opinion of standing armies, I think a little bit of common sense is needed here. The military should never be compared to the citizenry as a whole, in my opinion (assuming an all volunteer force, mind you). An extra level of discipline and I dare say subserviance is necessary for a fighting force. We can't have soldiers deciding to abandon the next engagement on the grounds of involuntary servitude because they want to quit at that moment, or any other scenario we can such as that. Also, it's important to note that with our current volunteer service, it's a contractual agreement. I have no problem with soldiers not having as many rights as the citizenry so long as it pertains to the actual performance of their duties, and so long as it is a voluntary force.

Having said that, I do believe that they should be allowed some constitutional protections, such as due process, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc.

MRE's are not cruel ? :)

[oyarde]

And this is just another way in which the 17th Amendment hopelessly broke the entire system.
If state legislatures were represented in the federal government, as they once were,
and if Senators weren't basically for sale via campaign contributions from defense contractors (campaigns that wouldn't even happen if they were chosen by state legislatures),
then I seriously doubt this level of spending in the face of no clear military threat would ever pass the senate, let alone continue to pass every two years in perpetuity.

Interesting .

[oyarde]

Yep, it's constitutional.

Correct .

[libertarian4321]

Can someone how under the UCMJ this guy took the 5th?

http://home.millsaps.edu/mcelvrs/Ollie_North.jpg

The lack of explanation may explain something.
:mad:

North was tried in a civilian court, not a military court. Hence, he had the full protections any citizen gets.

[oyarde]

North was tried in a civilian court, not a military court. Hence, he had the full protections any citizen gets.

Yes .

[heavenlyboy34]

UCMJ and the US military are a prefect example of a Marxist/Socialist/Communistic type society... but it's all legit, because you apparently, sign your all rights away and over to the DOD to decide your faith.

All the rest is frigin propaganda and government BS.

Hey, I agree with you on something! :eek::D (and so did TJ)

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334



"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231



"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

[pcosmar]

North was tried in a civilian court, not a military court. Hence, he had the full protections any citizen gets.
The was not on trial and had not been tried when he was Ordered to testify to Congress.
He was not on trial. or charged.
He was under oath.
He took the 5th.

I watched it. A WTF moment. He refused to answer questions on the grounds of the 5th amendment.
He was an active duty Officer. He refused a direct order from his superiors. (Congress)

[oyarde]

The was not on trial and had not been tried when he was Ordered to testify to Congress.
He was not on trial. or charged.
He was under oath.
He took the 5th.

I watched it. A WTF moment. He refused to answer questions on the grounds of the 5th amendment.
He was an active duty Officer. He refused a direct order from his superiors. (Congress)

That is right , but as far as I know you should be able to take it in front of congress ? I do not even see how congress can require you to show up . That bunch of scumbags are usually collectively much worse than anyone they would be questioning .

[pcosmar]

That is right , but as far as I know you should be able to take it in front of congress ? I do not even see how congress can require you to show up . That bunch of scumbags are usually collectively much worse than anyone they would be questioning .

What is the punishment for insubordination??(refusal to obey/to give a report of his actions)

[oyarde]

What is the punishment for insubordination??(refusal to obey/to give a report of his actions)

I will see if I can check on it . In the UCMJ articles 77 through 134 should be the punitive articles . Article 91 is insubordination , but I think it is just for enlisted .

[oyarde]

Looks like he may be clean . Article 89 is for the officers , but appears it is only for other officers.

[tnvoter]

Yet the people we're fighting right now have no particular subservience to anyone, they're free to abandon engagements, and even if there was a contract, there's no state that will imprison them if they break it.
Yet here we are, coming up on year 8, with no clear victory.
It sure seems like the model you're describing isn't the only model out there, and isn't even the only successful model.



This will never be said often or loudly enough. Our current model bears too many resemblances to the one the founding fathers intentionally tried to avoid.

THIS! The way troops lives are commanded right now I believe was not intended by our founders.

If our nation is truly threatened then free men WILL defend it voluntarily without the unintended consequences of a mock voluntary service (unintended consequences: policing the world, high suicide rates, mistreatment of troops, mistreatment of civilians abroad). Key word is DEFEND. The same reason why we must have a Declaration of War, because if we are truly threatened, there will be a declaration.

[oyarde]

What is the punishment for insubordination??(refusal to obey/to give a report of his actions)

If I recall , the punishment for court martial conviction of dereliction or insubordination for officer and enlisted is a year confinement and discharge .

[foofighter20x]

The was not on trial and had not been tried when he was Ordered to testify to Congress.
He was not on trial. or charged.
He was under oath.
He took the 5th.

I watched it. A WTF moment. He refused to answer questions on the grounds of the 5th amendment.
He was an active duty Officer. He refused a direct order from his superiors. (Congress)

YouTube - Dont Talk to Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

I whole-heartedly support the right to take the Fifth, even if you've done nothing wrong.

You never know when you might say some little, innocent thing that a jury would eat up and convict you on.

[mrsat_98]

I will see if I can check on it . In the UCMJ articles 77 through 134 should be the punitive articles . Article 91 is insubordination , but I think it is just for enlisted .

Each state has a Code of Military Justice and if you look carefully you may come to the conclusion that we live under it. A deputy sheriff agreed with me on this one time and I am convinced we are being subjected to it.

[dean.engelhardt]

I was in boot camp decades ago, so my memory is quite fuzzy. I believe that when you join the military, you surrender your constitutional rights. If not AWOL and desertion coild not be punishable.

[erowe1]

I was in boot camp decades ago, so my memory is quite fuzzy. I believe that when you join the military, you surrender your constitutional rights. If not AWOL and desertion coild not be punishable.

You definitely do. This is part of why the idea of judges demanding the repeal of DADT on the grounds that it violates the constitutional rights of members of the military is absurd. They might was well demand that military codes against going AWOL also be repealed.