- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The Dept.of Def and the United States Supreme Court, neither Congress nor the President had any say in what was put into the UCMJ
The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.
Really so may I ask you how long have you been working for the DoD and at the Pentagon huh.
Question do any of you actually know what Section 925 Art. 125 is huh. Or better yet do any of you know how the comp. came between Mr. Clinton/USSC/DoD for DADT.
Before any of you shot off your mouths I suggest you go and read what Section 925 Art 125 is then we can talk.
None it's controlled by all three as are Founding Father want it to.
Scorpion...you are wrong. Period. You are making yourself look silly with your continuing argument.
No.
I suggest you read the Constitution and try to figure out which branch controls the military.
I'll ask you the same question how long have you been working for the DoD and how long have you been at The Pentagon huh, I might know a little bit more on said subject. He can't change DADT that was part of the Comp. when Mr. Clinton order DADT be enacted.
I might know a little bit more on said subject.
I'll ask you the same question how long have you been working for the DoD and how long have you been at The Pentagon huh, I might know a little bit more on said subject. He can't change DADT that was part of the Comp. when Mr. Clinton order DADT be enacted.
I'll ask you the same question how long have you been working for the DoD and how long have you been at The Pentagon huh, I might know a little bit more on said subject. He can't change DADT that was part of the Comp. when Mr. Clinton order DADT be enacted.
Obama can also issue an executive order abolishing Art. 125. Of course, there is a little bit of a hypocritical "gotcha" in doing this, because it would tend to go against Obama's opposition of the unitary president theory. But Bush opened up the door for him on this one. Like him or not, Bush frequently WAS the decider, based on his own use of executive orders. Obama could be a decider too, if he wants to be. And since the Democrats control Congress now, there won't be nearly as much opposition to an Obama executive order as there was to Bush's executive orders. Question is, does Obama have the guts to do it. Bush had the guts, and did it.
So you are saying it took an executive order to enact it, but an executive order cannot repeal it?
No he can't order any part of the UCMJ to be abolished it would be a violation of the US Constitution only the USSC can over turn any part of the UCMJ.
No he can't order any part of the UCMJ to be abolished it would be a violation of the US Constitution only the USSC can over turn any part of the UCMJ.
I learned military law from a former Deputy Secretary of Defense. I'm betting he was more familiar with the ins and outs of the UCMJ than you are.
Yes have any of you actually read the UCMJ ???? You do understand that unlike normal US Law the UCMJ are held to a different stander and when DADT was enacted it took a Comp between Congress/DoD/USSC and Mr. Clinton.
Hmm you sure about that my Dad was a JAG Lawyer and JAG Judge the last 10 Years of his Military Service.
Hmm you sure about that my Dad was a JAG Lawyer and JAG Judge the last 10 Years of his Military Service.
No he can't order any part of the UCMJ to be abolished it would be a violation of the US Constitution only the USSC can over turn any part of the UCMJ.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47), is the foundation of military law in the United States.
Uniform Code of Military Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hmm you sure about that my Dad was a JAG Lawyer and JAG Judge the last 10 Years of his Military Service.
Your dad's name could be Military J. Justicelawyerson and it wouldn't change the fact that you're completely wrong about this.
This is why DADT can't be changed.
925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
End of the discussion the reason why DADT was enacted was because of this section. The USSC has refused to rule this or any part of the UCMJ Un-Constitutional hence the reason DADT was enacted christ folks go and ****ing learn the UCMJ
this is why dadt can't be changed.
925. Art. 125. Sodomy
(a) any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
End of the discussion the reason why dadt was enacted was because of this section. The ussc has refused to rule this or any part of the ucmj un-constitutional hence the reason dadt was enacted christ folks go and ****ing learn the ucmj
READ THIS:
The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large and abbreviated Stat., is the official source for the laws and concurrent resolutions passed by United States Congress.
United States Statutes at Large - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is why DADT can't be changed.
925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
End of the discussion the reason why DADT was enacted was because of this section. The USSC has refused to rule this or any part of the UCMJ Un-Constitutional hence the reason DADT was enacted christ folks go and ****ing learn the UCMJ
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?