Thesis: The Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is unconstitutional under The Supremacy Clause of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. Argument: When one volunteers to join the U. S. military, he or she signs a contract wherein that person agrees to abide by all of the rules within said contract, most salient is the UCMJ. And as long as that contract is in effect, any violation of the rules, or UCMJ, that person commits may result in consequences. And its the type of consequences that are basis for my argument. Currently, the type of consequences that come from violating the rules of the UCMJ are punitive/criminal in nature, technically speaking. This means that breaking the rules of the contract can result in arrest, a criminal trial, confinement, and even death. And here in lies the unconstitutional part of the UCMJ. In order for a citizen of the United States to be charged, convicted and sentenced as punishment, he or she has to have broken an actual law, whether it be at the municipal, state, or federal level. In other words, if an employee of Walmart violates the terms/rules of his or her employment contract, Walmart cannot legally try, convict, and sentence an employee for, lets say, publically endorsing Target. The most that Walmart can do is fire the employee and file a civil lawsuit for breach of contract. There will be no Walmart MPs arresting the employee and escorting them to the Walmart Court martial that eventually results in confinement in the Walmart brig. But in the U. S. military, essentially a breach of ones employment contract may result in criminal, not civil, prosecution. By this, one can only infer that the UCMJ is not merely a civil employment contract. Instead, it is an actual body of federal laws. If this is so, that means that the validity of the UCMJ is subject to examination under the Constitution as all other federal, state, and municipal laws are in the United States. If youre asking yourself who said all laws are subject to examination under the Constitution, I will answer with besides applying a bit of constitutional common sense, to be more specific Article VI (a.k.a. The Supremacy Clause), paragraph 2 clearly states that all laws within the U. S. must follow in accordance with the Constitution. This means that if any law that exists within the borders of this country conflict with the Constitution, then that law is not valid. Now its no secret that the UCMJ is filled with articles, or laws, that directly conflict with the Constitution. Whether it be conflicts with the 1st Amendment and the restrictions on our speech or ability to wear whatever clothing we choose. Or conflicts with the 4th Amendment and how we conduct health and comfort or field day inspections, it is not hard to conclude that the UCMJ is filled with laws that literally violate the United States Constitution. Therefore, if the UCMJ is to be treated as a punitive/criminal body of laws, and all laws in this country are bound by Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, then it is logical to conclude that the UCMJ, in its current form, is unconstitutional due to its content which contradicts the content of the Constitution. Therefore, I recommend either of two options. 1) the United States modifies the legal authority of the UCMJ to no longer be punitive/criminal in nature and render it a civil employment contract between employee and employer or.... 2) The United States modifies the content of the UCMJ to be in accordance with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. But as it currently stands, the UCMJ is unconstitutional and cannot continue to have both the unconstitutional content and the legal authority that it currently enjoys. I welcome all valid, thought-out counter arguments. If I am wrong, please show me how. So far Ive posed this question to a few retired SJAs, adjutants, and lawyers. And the only counter they can present is the United States Code which gives the UCMJ its legal authority. But as previously stated, the U.S.C. is a body of laws subordinate to the Constitution. So it must also be in compliance with the Constitution, and therefore is not a valid counter argument. But if anyone has any new information to offer, Im all ears. If not, I am considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the UCMJ. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not the UCMJ. If you read this far, I greatly appreciate your mental endurance.
Posted on: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 23:59:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015