DADT Unconstitutional?

[bb4_96]

I think anyone who follows the news will know about the new issue. Apparently current military policy on don't ask don't tell is unconstitutional. Which may be true. My question is after you start declaring military policies unconstitutional where does it end? When military servicemen/women are just civilians in uniforms? Wtf happens to article 125? If you read through the UCMJ there is alot going on there that stands to be modified/removed if they do succeed in deeming dadt unconstitutional.

I don't think anyone considered(or even cared to) the repercussions of setting this precident.

[theicecreamdan]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

When military servicemen/women are just civilians in uniforms?

What else are they? You can't go around having a branch of the government exempt from the rules that they are protecting.

Going through and modernizing a set of rules is hardly a horrible set of repercussions to deal with and certainly shouldn't be a major deciding factor on any issue.

Obviously article 125 isn't something used that often. If every soldier got court martialed for getting a BJ we would probably not be at war right now.

[bb4_96]

^ Have you been educated on the UCMJ? Service members are held to a much more stringent set of laws than yourself. We are almost/generally regarded as pieces of government property. When was the last time your employer was allowed to imprison you for insubordination? My fear is that many of these laws could be found unconstitutional like the Dont ask dont tell policy.

[HalveBlue]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I think anyone who follows the news will know about the new issue. Apparently current military policy on don't ask don't tell is unconstitutional. Which may be true. My question is after you start declaring military policies unconstitutional where does it end? When military servicemen/women are just civilians in uniforms? Wtf happens to article 125? If you read through the UCMJ there is alot going on there that stands to be modified/removed if they do succeed in deeming dadt unconstitutional.

I don't think anyone considered(or even cared to) the repercussions of setting this precident.

The UCMJ can and has been changed.

Article 125 is retarded anyway. The only time it's ever invoked is in conjunction with some other charge (like rape).

I don't see what the big deal is. Homosexuals have been serving in the military since the beginning of time.

Mission, not sexual orientation, is paramount.

I don't see an inherent reason why a homosexual service member is less able to accomplish an assigned mission than a heterosexual one.

I say get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

[bb4_96]

My qualm isn't with don't ask don't tell. IMO who gives a shit at this point. My concern is that we are declaring parts of military law unconstitutional. Once you've set that legal precedent you have opened a very serious can of worms. You can't just say oh well that was don't ask don't tell thats different.

By declaring don't ask don't tell unconstitutional you open the door to saying anything in military law that is unconstitutional can be declared so. I just don't think this is the right way to modify the UCMJ.

[theicecreamdan]

So military law shouldn't be bound by the constitution?

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

My qualm isn't with don't ask don't tell. IMO who gives a shit at this point. My concern is that we are declaring parts of military law unconstitutional. Once you've set that legal precedent you have opened a very serious can of worms. You can't just say oh well that was don't ask don't tell thats different.

By declaring don't ask don't tell unconstitutional you open the door to saying anything in military law that is unconstitutional can be declared so. I just don't think this is the right way to modify the UCMJ.

Well, that is not entirely true. DADT is a civil rights issue. UCMJ must not violate the civil rights of the members of the military. The constitution is the foundation for everything. I am by no means any expert on UCMJ, but with that said, everything in it must fall within the constitution. Just because there is a contention on whether something violates the constitution does not mean it actually does. The military has plenty of lawyers that make sure the UCMJ falls within the governing laws for each issue.

[BustedS13]

yes, it's absolutely unconstitutional. it's offensive archaic bullshit.
the military is just another business. i believe people who have served deserve respect for doing so, but, same as the police, they shouldn't be above the law. it shouldn't be an issue that we're SUGGESTING they do ignorant things. it should just be determined whether or not they do, and then we move on.

[bb4_96]

I need help from someone that has been in. The UCMJ doesn't mean you are governed by less stringent laws. It doesn't mean you are above the law. It means you have more laws! People in the military must abide by all the US laws, the laws of the territories they are in, and the UCMJ! It is a higher standard. Not a lower standard. Military members are held to the constitution plus additional laws.

That being said I fear some of those additional laws may be found unconstituational.

Service men and women forfeit several civil liberties via the UCMJ when they enlist. Alot of those laws are important to militay operation. Like I said if you take the UCMJ and its higher constraints away then sevicemen are just civilians in camoflauge.

When you get mad at your boss you can tell him to fuck off and go home and only repercussions is getting fired. Picture that in a war zone. A dozen infantry engaged by opfor and they decide they've had enough and go home. How effective do you think the military would be? I don't think I need to explain the effects of revoking the article on malingering, adultery, DUI, Carnal knowledge. This country has to expect its servicemen to be held to the highest standard.

What stops another judge from declaring another part of the UCMJ unconstitutional?

Now DADT is different from these other laws. I can't really justify myself why it is still in place. But I stand firm on my opinion that declaring it unconstitutional is the wrong way to repeal it because it sets a dangerous precedent.

And in the end the armed forces is about protecting civil liberties not enjoying them....jk

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

What stops another judge from declaring another part of the UCMJ unconstitutional?

Now DADT is different from these other laws. I can't really justify myself why it is still in place. But I stand firm on my opinion that declaring it unconstitutional is the wrong way to repeal it because it sets a dangerous precedent.

And in the end the armed forces is about protecting civil liberties not enjoying them....jk

Judicial precedent for DADT being declared unconstitutional, I would think, would only apply to future policies that discriminated against people based on their sexual orientation.

You would not offer up an argument that just because DADT was declared unconstitutional, that the rest of the book is. Military law does have a lot more restrictions, however, they are still constitutional. Depending on whether you are in war, or training, or living on base.

Just out of curiosity, what else do you think would be deemed unconstitutional based on this decision?

[bb4_96]

How is killing someone for insubordination on the battlefield constituational? Where's the trial? Judge? Jury?

How is docking pay/demoting for any number of civil/criminal infractions constituational?

Jailing for exercising freedom of speech?

Those are just a couple examples, but the UCMJ is all encompassing(even has a catch all article..134 i believe). Things that are considered constitutional for a civilian but are seen as unbecoming of a serviceman can be punished.

maybe I'm ignorant to certain clauses in the constitutional but I see some gaps

Entrance requirements very narrowly skirt being constitutional. The staffing computers are very much gender biased. Carrying things over from our other conversation... if you don't have a clear anatomical gender they won't even let you in.

Women are held to a different physical standard than men, even if they share the same career.

I haven't taken time to mull over the repercussions of removing many of the questionable parts of the UCMJ. All I know is that the US has the best(however you want to define it) armed forces in the world hands down and it has alot to do with the higher standards its members are held to.

[bb4_96]

Why would a group seeking to remove an article of the UCMJ on constitutionality limit the precedent set by this case to sexual orientational discrimination?

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

How is killing someone for insubordination on the battlefield constituational? Where's the trial? Judge? Jury?

Not sure how that is legal at all. The military does have it's own "court" system though. Congress can delegate powers to agencies, as long as it has intelligible principal (do not even ask what that means...). So the military can administer/adjudicate itself withing reason (I believe... not quite sure though).

Originally Posted by bb4_96

How is docking pay/demoting for any number of civil/criminal infractions constituational?

How is it not? the constitution does not guarantee you anything to do with pay.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Jailing for exercising freedom of speech?

No one said there would be no consequences for exercising your freedom. You are not allowed to just say "Fuck" on the evening news, or you will be fined by the FCC. Again, this is a delegation of powers, by congress, to an agency. You also can not sue a previous employer for firing you on the basis of having crude language. Again though, you do, in a sense get some "due process" I would imagine (like a disciplinary board review or something).

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Those are just a couple examples, but the UCMJ is all encompassing(even has a catch all article..134 i believe). Things that are considered constitutional for a civilian but are seen as unbecoming of a serviceman can be punished.

Again, what is unconstitutional about this? Any employer can do this (as long as it is not violating your civil rights). Think dress codes, having to shave, having hair cut, so on etc.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

maybe I'm ignorant to certain clauses in the constitutional but I see some gaps

The constitution is purposefully ambiguous. Can you find me a clause throughout the entire constitution that would not allows this law "The IRS may set tax rates however they want" that is the entire law right there.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Entrance requirements very narrowly skirt being constitutional. The staffing computers are very much gender biased. Carrying things over from our other conversation... if you don't have a clear anatomical gender they won't even let you in.

Discrimination is legal in some sense. If you are a very overweight man, Muscle and Fitness can "discriminate" against you and not hire you as a cover model. When there is a certain physical requirement of the job, and without any reasonable substitute (like wheel chair ramps etc.) you can discriminate. Not sure though on how many soldiers are having gender identity issues though. I do not think that would be something they would have to address until the situation actually presented itself.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Women are held to a different physical standard than men, even if they share the same career.

Not always true. Again, if we are talking Military, Police, or something of that nature, there is a very real reason for them to have different physical standards. However, it is relative to their body as well. Ask Airforce guys who can take more G's in a plane. It is women. So in a sense they are stronger. Brute physical strength is not always the best test. Women are also, naturally, better shooters.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I haven't taken time to mull over the repercussions of removing many of the questionable parts of the UCMJ. All I know is that the US has the best(however you want to define it) armed forces in the world hands down and it has alot to do with the higher standards its members are held to.

We are also constantly in some sort of conflict. We need those standards. Most other countries have not had to fire an actual gun since WWI... I think... do not quote me on that...

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I need help from someone that has been in. The UCMJ doesn't mean you are governed by less stringent laws. It doesn't mean you are above the law. It means you have more laws! People in the military must abide by all the US laws, the laws of the territories they are in, and the UCMJ! It is a higher standard. Not a lower standard. Military members are held to the constitution plus additional laws.

That being said I fear some of those additional laws may be found unconstituational.

Service men and women forfeit several civil liberties via the UCMJ when they enlist. Alot of those laws are important to militay operation. Like I said if you take the UCMJ and its higher constraints away then sevicemen are just civilians in camoflauge.

When you get mad at your boss you can tell him to fuck off and go home and only repercussions is getting fired. Picture that in a war zone. A dozen infantry engaged by opfor and they decide they've had enough and go home. How effective do you think the military would be? I don't think I need to explain the effects of revoking the article on malingering, adultery, DUI, Carnal knowledge. This country has to expect its servicemen to be held to the highest standard.

What stops another judge from declaring another part of the UCMJ unconstitutional?

Now DADT is different from these other laws. I can't really justify myself why it is still in place. But I stand firm on my opinion that declaring it unconstitutional is the wrong way to repeal it because it sets a dangerous precedent.

And in the end the armed forces is about protecting civil liberties not enjoying them....jk

Half of the shit in the military can be considered unconstitutional, I really don't care if DADT stays or goes, but whether or not it is constitutional definitely isn't the way to get rid of it. Half of the things done in the military could be considered unconstitutional, but you know what, none of these people were forced to join, they knew the rules before they came in. I don't see why people who are well aware of the rules join and expect to change things to cater to them, because there are PLENTY of rules in the military. I've heard all sorts of arguements like "They don't choose to be straight or not." "They're born that way." Or I've even heard people go as far as saying it is a birth defect. Fact is the military is well segregated as it is, overweight people are kicked out for being out of regulations, people with asthma are not allowed to join, hanging out with someone of a higher paygrade could be considered fraternization, so gays are not the only ones segregated against in the military.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by raz0rbladez909

Half of the shit in the military can be considered unconstitutional, I really don't care if DADT stays or goes, but whether or not it is constitutional definitely isn't the way to get rid of it. Half of the things done in the military could be considered unconstitutional, but you know what, none of these people were forced to join, they knew the rules before they came in. I don't see why people who are well aware of the rules join and expect to change things to cater to them, because there are PLENTY of rules in the military. I've heard all sorts of arguements like "They don't choose to be straight or not." "They're born that way." Or I've even heard people go as far as saying it is a birth defect. Fact is the military is well segregated as it is, overweight people are kicked out for being out of regulations, people with asthma are not allowed to join, hanging out with someone of a higher paygrade could be considered fraternization, so gays are not the only ones segregated against in the military.

Did you just compare being gay to being overweight? Being gay has no affect on service. Last time I checked we have become worse off because of kicking the gays out. Civil rights should always be protected end of story (ex. the military can not kick you out for marry outside your race, something that use to happen).

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Not sure how that is legal at all. The military does have it's own "court" system though. Congress can delegate powers to agencies, as long as it has intelligible principal (do not even ask what that means...). So the military can administer/adjudicate itself withing reason (I believe... not quite sure though)

It's a rare case but still written in military law.

Originally Posted by ineedone

Again, what is unconstitutional about this? Any employer can do this (as long as it is not violating your civil rights). Think dress codes, having to shave, having hair cut, so on etc.

Can you think of a scenario where it would violate civil rights?

Originally Posted by ineedone

Discrimination is legal in some sense. If you are a very overweight man, Muscle and Fitness can "discriminate" against you and not hire you as a cover model. When there is a certain physical requirement of the job, and without any reasonable substitute (like wheel chair ramps etc.) you can discriminate. Not sure though on how many soldiers are having gender identity issues though. I do not think that would be something they would have to address until the situation actually presented itself.

When was the last time you heard a sevicemen have to use his penis in their job? However if a male has a malformation/no discernable penis/multiple sexual organs he'd be denied entry.

Originally Posted by ineedone

Not always true. Again, if we are talking Military, Police, or something of that nature, there is a very real reason for them to have different physical standards. However, it is relative to their body as well. Ask Airforce guys who can take more G's in a plane. It is women. So in a sense they are stronger. Brute physical strength is not always the best test. Women are also, naturally, better shooters.

I was a little vague. I meant physical training requirements. women can be slower with less upper body and abdominal stength and share the same career field with men who have been required to perform to a higher standard. Why? This is a requirement to be a member and must be completed initially and bi-annually(not sure for every branch).

There is a barrage of differences between the military and civilian life. I personally am just worried overall that this generation's qualms with unfairness will have more serious repercussions than foreseen(not just military, all encompassing).

I appreciate the inisghts.

[TravisSW]

Who cares if gays are in the military or not?

More firepower.

And if I was in a fox hole. I'd rather be in it with a gay guy who thinks I have a cute ass and will fight to keep my ass from being shot or blown up. lol (Line from a comedian, but changed a lil to my own words.)

Wouldn't mind having a huge butch chick in a huge melee battle either. Watch her chuck a hadji through a wall.

I still laugh that this is even a problem.

[bb4_96]

^ Gays in the military not so much a problem. Just how they are going about it.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

It's a rare case but still written in military law.

There must be some extent of due process given though. Just an accusation will not be justified in taking someones life. Obviously, and even in the rare case, it must be investigated.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Can you think of a scenario where it would violate civil rights?

Docking pay? If you are payed less/docked more than white counterpart for no other reason than being Black. Or male/female.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

When was the last time you heard a sevicemen have to use his penis in their job? However if a male has a malformation/no discernable penis/multiple sexual organs he'd be denied entry.

What? Not quite sure what you are trying to get at. But having a medical issue that prohibits you from serving is perfectly legal. If you have severe asthma, doubtful you will be cleared by medical to go through basic. There is nothing wrong with that. There most likely exist some legal standard to judge that by as well.

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I was a little vague. I meant physical training requirements. women can be slower with less upper body and abdominal stength and share the same career field with men who have been required to perform to a higher standard. Why? This is a requirement to be a member and must be completed initially and bi-annually(not sure for every branch).

The amount of pushups has no bearing on being a soldier. Minimum physical require do exist. That is to ensure that the physical level is needed. Obviously, women have a different standard as they are genetically different then men. However, like everything in this world, exceptions exist. However, in a general sense, the requirements are "equal" in the sense that measure the amount of physical activity required to complete basic. It is not a higher standard, more of just takes the men more to achieve the same standard that is set for the women. Make sense?

Originally Posted by bb4_96

There is a barrage of differences between the military and civilian life. I personally am just worried overall that this generation's qualms with unfairness will have more serious repercussions than foreseen(not just military, all encompassing).

I appreciate the inisghts.

Our military is only getting better and stronger do to all the "unfairness." We have all races, religions, etc. in the military because we deemed "unfair" (unconstitutional) to exclude them from service. Yes, the military must account for it actions more now then ever, but explain to me why that would ever be bad thing? Why would anyone want to fight for something, they themselves, are not allowed to have (rights that is).

[ThatGuy]

bb4 96, are you in the Military yourself?

What branch?

How old are you?

How long have you served?

Where are you stationed?

The answers to these questions will decide my further comments on this topic.
Thank you.

[S14DB]

UCMJ is federal law which falls under the supreme courts jurisdiction. It only covers internal military justice matters.

125? what about 120? I don't think all those single servicemen are keeping it in their pants.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

bb4 96, are you in the Military yourself?

What branch?

How old are you?

How long have you served?

Where are you stationed?

The answers to these questions will decide my further comments on this topic.
Thank you.

here comes the part where he tells us we're not allowed to say anything about the way the military conducts itself unless we're in the military.
you're a US citizen. we're US citizens. you are not better.

[ThatGuy]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

here comes the part where he tells us we're not allowed to say anything about the way the military conducts itself unless we're in the military. we aren't allowed to question such a glorious murder machine.

Not at all, but nice try.

I just want to get a feel for where his argument is coming from before I waste my time.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

Not at all, but nice try.

I just want to get a feel for where his argument is coming from before I waste my time.

but are you saying that if he's not in the military, the thread isn't worth your time?
i'm just assuming you are, because every time there's a thread criticizing the military on pretty much any forum i'm on, the military guys all act that way.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

here comes the part where he tells us we're not allowed to say anything about the way the military conducts itself unless we're in the military.
you're a US citizen. we're US citizens. you are not better.

Originally Posted by BustedS13

but are you saying that if he's not in the military, the thread isn't worth your time?
i'm just assuming you are, because every time there's a thread criticizing the military on pretty much any forum i'm on, the military guys all act that way.

It's more that his point of argument reeks of ignorance and lack of understanding on how the "system" works.

[ThatGuy]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

but are you saying that if he's not in the military, the thread isn't worth your time?
i'm just assuming you are, because every time there's a thread criticizing the military on pretty much any forum i'm on, the military guys all act that way.

It's just a matter of how I will word it, and how much I will have to explain.

It would be a waste of my time to over-explain things if it is not required.


Sorry, but you're not going to fit me into your ignorant stereotype quite that easily.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by S14DB

It's more that his point of argument reeks of ignorance and lack of understanding on how the "system" works.

why is DADT a good idea? that's all i really want to know. will openly gay soldiers get blanket parties every night?

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

It's just a matter of how I will word it, and how much I will have to explain.

It would be a waste of my time to over-explain things if it is not required.


Sorry, but you're not going to fit me into your ignorant stereotype quite that easily.

you're free to spin your post how you please.

but since you ARE actually in the military, i'd like to hear your opinion anyway.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

but since you ARE actually in the military, i'd like to hear your opinion anyway.

More importantly, to me at least, do you know of/have any military law experience? Only reason I ask is because JAG may be in my future, and I want to know how far off I am in my reasoning.

I think the op was just asking questions, not necessarily arguing. For people with little to no experience with the legal system, these type of things are extremely confusing (not that having experience helps all that much!). They are tough to explain, and even tougher to comprehend.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

why is DADT a good idea? that's all i really want to know. will openly gay soldiers get blanket parties every night?

I wasn't saying anything about DADT. I was saying that DADT is not part of the UCMJ. It's a separate law. For him doing a compare and contrast between the two is a fallacy of logic.


For people that aren't upto speed: Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bb4_96]

2 tours. 2 branches. aviation mechanic. May or may not be serving presently. With my posts I'm sure you understand my vagueness.

As many classes as I've had on UCMJ, military law, etc. I hope I know at least a little bit about the way things work.

My only real concern is that the standard that's been established long before my time will begin to erode because of the egg shells we're being required to walk on.

DADT revoked will have repercussions and I don't how servere they will be but I do know that if its declared unconstitutional there will be no reversing it if things go poorly. I don't care about gays serving in the military but I'd want to hear about it really. I'm no more comfortable listening to a gay man's private affairs than a straight man's. I don't want to hear about any of it and now there will be nothing I can do about any of it. Because if I complain to my supervisor I'm likely to be repremanded.

As far as civilians weighing in. I don't mind. I like the perspective but at the same time its like California weighing in on Arizona's thoughts on the border in a way. You saw how the first two posts in the thread went lol. I didn't realize that the general populous thinks servicemen are above the law.

I fear change in the Military. I hate to see _______(insert word) sensitivity impair the military like it has the nation. I'm not so ignorant as to not see that much change has occurred in years past. I just like the idea of military being a model for the nation and not the other way around.