Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...