I guess soldiers are not allowed Freedom of Speech are they?

[LunarRay]

Zebo,

PSS I still don't understand why congress would have to sue for compliance and direction. Seems the USSC should step in if someone brings a case..no?

Implied in my last is the reason but, since it is a "PSS"... ..

The separation issue is raised in everything.. nominations, war powers, informational requests, and on and on. Short of investigating an impeachable offense (must be so stated) or some criminal court proceeding, the papers of the Executive are separate and apart from Congress and that other branch. Just about every thing is under the cloak of executive privilege. The key to unlocking that vault is when there is evidence of an incriminating or exculpatory nature and even then the 'privilege' may allow for redacted submission.. IMO

I'd have to go back to the discussions with Madison and Hamilton and the others regarding this and why the lower and the USSCourt itself tends to invoke "political basis" as the reason to not even hear many cases. I don't even know if I still have it.. been so long.. and settled..

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Zebo,

Thanks lunar I was wondering how congress gave up it's right and duty in article one. IMO yes both are unconstitutional since they give up congressional power and circumvent the ideals the founders had of a "review" of sorts by congressional discussion before our assests and troops are commited. And I'm sure there's something in the idea of total commitment too when a war is declared.. so you better be serious about it, have discussion and win.. no half assed effots as we've seen and no globe trotting as we've seen and unpopular efforts we have seen. But since they gave up thier own rights it's more difficult to determine.

PS I thought something in the 1950's also empowered the president?

PSS I still don't understand why congress would have to sue for compliance and direction. Seems the USSC should step in if someone brings a case..no?

Hehehehehehe, you play chess?

" These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration. The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts gen erally refused, on ''political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter. In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant."

Annotations to the Congressional Article 1 section 8 authority

Awhile back I said the President's staff created wiggle room in this Iraqi issue. This is one such wiggle. Remember he invaded Iraq persuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter.. (our law as well by treaty).

Ya? Dad..brothers and I stayed up late nights in HS playing chess, othello, monoploy and all sorts of games sometimes till 3 in the moning of weekdays.. Hav'nt played in years though.

Anyway Congress also gave itself wiggle room with that 77 thinggy in the first gulf war..where they never used the term war and were careful not to declare.

 

[LunarRay]

Zebo,

Anyway Congress also gave itself wiggle room with that 77 thinggy in the first gulf war..where they never used the term war and were careful not to declare.

Papa Bush did not seek WPA resolution initially in '91 but finally did and I think signed it.. may not have.. it is a tug of war and both sides are pretty strong.. but, Congress holds the purse.. I think the President can send the troops anywhere and seek spending authority. If he don't get it then he can by executive order secure funding or divert funding or declare a national emergency or what ever else his staff can cook up to effect the agenda.

edit:
"Starting from President Bush's unilateral commitment to defend Saudi Arabia and proceeding to Congress' jury-rigged approval, the episode represented a textbook example of how an audacious executive, acquiescent legislature and deferential judiciary have pushed the Constitution's system of separation of powers steadily backwards toward the monopolistic system of King George III. When President Bush finally requested legislative approval in a letter to Congress January 8, 1991, he never acknowledged that statutory authorization was constitutionally required. In fact, the president said that he still believed he had the authority to act without legislative authorization. "I don't think I need it," he said the next day, and White House aides hinted that the administration had the right to defy any restrictions that Congress might impose.

In addition to raising disturbing constitutional questions, these events highlight anew the fecklessness of the War Powers Resolution and the urgent need for that 1973 law to be repealed or revised."
Slinky

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: LunarRay

edit to add: Article 15 NJP is 'Captain's Mast' or in the army 'I just forgot what it is called---- getting old....

In the army, we simply call NJP "Article 15". Basically, there are three types: summary, company grade and field grade.

Jeez, I think the last time I even worried about Article 15 proceedings regarding one of my soldiers was maybe five years ago.

Different climate I guess.. I don't think more than a few even get to NJP not to mention Court Martial if you have a good NCO running the show. A soldier is late or most minor infractions are 'handled' in the way they should be.

Yep, that is key right there. Normally, a good NCO chain of command can and, in my opinion, should handle most minor infractions in-house to a certain extent. Saves time and can usually keep a decent soldier's record clean.

From experience, I've known of soldiers attending anti-nuke demonstrations in Germany with their girlfriends back during the 80s. They weren't out there protesting, just hanging around. Usually after a good lecture, they were more discrete with their off-duty time. No UCMJ involved unless the CoC was looked for a reason to bust them. Some played dumb by implying that they didn't know protests were off-limits.

I've another story describing a situation in which both the CO and 1SG knew that a certain NCO, with help from a German, was selling beer to demonstrators during the mid-80s. Both leaders laughed it off, but they did in fact verbally warn the NCO about such things.

Anyway, something tells me we don't yet know all the details about this particular sailor's deeds.

 

[LunarRay]

Burnedout,

Anyway, something tells me we don't yet know all the details about this particular sailor's deeds.

True, but maybe we do and because we do the folks in the military have to use this as an example. I can see them doing that to avert another Vietnam type insanity. There are some who'd use active duty folks to further their objectives... and with derision comes eventual chaos and we don't need that because the offshoot is to some how blame the military folks as they cycle home. And, this I can't stand!