Quote:
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?