3 ms·

Doesn't US military have their own code of justice and court system?

rootusrootus 4y ago
Sure, but this is about constraints by the Constitution, and military members do not give up their Constitutional protections when they enlist.
- rockemsockem 4y ago
  Don't they? I was very much under the impression that they did.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    No. They absolutely do not. The closest thing that's true is this: Constitutional rights are always weighed against some government interest, and there's a lot of deference to the military with regard to government interest. So there may be things on the margins which are unconstitutional in every or nearly every civilian case, but are constitutional in the context of the government's interest in national defense. However, those rights still exist, and courts must still address those issues through the appropriate balancing test. EDIT: A cornerstone case to read, for those interested, is Parker v. Levy: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- YuriNiyazov 4y ago
  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    > in the time of war So are military courts going to close down since we’ve now ended the Afghanistan war? Or is that comma before “militia” going to mean that the time of war phrase is on for people who in a militia?
    - krapp 4y ago
      The United States is always at war, if not elsewhere, then with itself and its own principles.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - gpm 4y ago
      > or public danger; Whether or not we're in a time of public danger is definitely up for debate, but you can't just leave off the second condition in an or statement and pretend it doesn't exist when trying to claim the statement is false.
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
        Yea I’m on mobile so didn’t want to deal with full quote, it I assumed public danger meant like martial law. Do you know of any precedent on that part?
        gpm 4y ago
        No clue, I assumed it was fairly general, but could be wrong. Googled it quickly just now and I didn't find an answer. Incidentally I did find an answer to your previous question (about who the clause applies to), pasted it above.
    - gpm 4y ago
      > Or is that comma before “militia” going to mean that the time of war phrase is on for people who in a militia? Findlaw (usually reasonably accurate) claims that is the case > The protection of indictment by grand jury extends to all persons except those serving in the armed forces. All persons in the regular armed forces are subject to court martial rather than grand jury indictment or trial by jury.33 The exception’s limiting words when in actual service in time of war or public danger apply only to members of the militia, not to members of the regular armed forces. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation01.html#military https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation01.htm...
- nonameiguess 4y ago
  Yes, they do. You absolutely give up freedom of speech and any rights of unreasonable search and seizure when you enlist. You don't give up every right, though. You still get the option of a jury trial whenever you want one. A commander's ability to levy administrative punishment relies on you opting in. You always have the option to seek court martial instead, the issue being they can levy much more severe punishments.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Military members still have freedom of speech rights. More tightly regulated in some instances than civilians, but the right isn't taken away. Even as a civilian there are restrictions on your freedom of speech. Similar for the fourth amendment. There are exceptions for civilians, and a different set of exceptions for military members, based on government need. The Constitution applies to all US citizens, military or not.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The UCMJ forbids military members from "contemptuous speech" against the President and others in the chain of command. They may have some Constitutional protections, but they're hardly identical to those of civilians.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Sure, but this is about constraints by the Constitution, and military members do not give up their Constitutional protections when they enlist.

rockemsockem 4y ago
Don't they? I was very much under the impression that they did.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  No. They absolutely do not. The closest thing that's true is this: Constitutional rights are always weighed against some government interest, and there's a lot of deference to the military with regard to government interest. So there may be things on the margins which are unconstitutional in every or nearly every civilian case, but are constitutional in the context of the government's interest in national defense. However, those rights still exist, and courts must still address those issues through the appropriate balancing test. EDIT: A cornerstone case to read, for those interested, is Parker v. Levy: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
YuriNiyazov 4y ago
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > in the time of war So are military courts going to close down since we’ve now ended the Afghanistan war? Or is that comma before “militia” going to mean that the time of war phrase is on for people who in a militia?
  - krapp 4y ago
    The United States is always at war, if not elsewhere, then with itself and its own principles.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - gpm 4y ago
    > or public danger; Whether or not we're in a time of public danger is definitely up for debate, but you can't just leave off the second condition in an or statement and pretend it doesn't exist when trying to claim the statement is false.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      Yea I’m on mobile so didn’t want to deal with full quote, it I assumed public danger meant like martial law. Do you know of any precedent on that part?
      - gpm 4y ago
        No clue, I assumed it was fairly general, but could be wrong. Googled it quickly just now and I didn't find an answer. Incidentally I did find an answer to your previous question (about who the clause applies to), pasted it above.
  - gpm 4y ago
    > Or is that comma before “militia” going to mean that the time of war phrase is on for people who in a militia? Findlaw (usually reasonably accurate) claims that is the case > The protection of indictment by grand jury extends to all persons except those serving in the armed forces. All persons in the regular armed forces are subject to court martial rather than grand jury indictment or trial by jury.33 The exception’s limiting words when in actual service in time of war or public danger apply only to members of the militia, not to members of the regular armed forces. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation01.html#military https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation01.htm...
nonameiguess 4y ago
Yes, they do. You absolutely give up freedom of speech and any rights of unreasonable search and seizure when you enlist. You don't give up every right, though. You still get the option of a jury trial whenever you want one. A commander's ability to levy administrative punishment relies on you opting in. You always have the option to seek court martial instead, the issue being they can levy much more severe punishments.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Military members still have freedom of speech rights. More tightly regulated in some instances than civilians, but the right isn't taken away. Even as a civilian there are restrictions on your freedom of speech. Similar for the fourth amendment. There are exceptions for civilians, and a different set of exceptions for military members, based on government need. The Constitution applies to all US citizens, military or not.
ceejayoz 4y ago
The UCMJ forbids military members from "contemptuous speech" against the President and others in the chain of command. They may have some Constitutional protections, but they're hardly identical to those of civilians.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]