This is the third and final in a series of comments from this AP report. Part one is here, and part two here.
Here's a good link dealing with the Constitutional nature of the UCMJ. [...] though some state that the right of free speech is reserved to an individual member of the military while "out of uniform" and this law recognizes limitations that an individual faces when voicing opinions during military operations. -- Wikipedia on Disloyal Statements
Then *that* law is unconstitutional, period. I don't know how many times I have to say this before people understand, but it's getting frustrating.
First, as I have already proven as fact, there are any number of laws that exist in violation of the Constitution that haven't been struck down yet, for any number of reasons. Incompetent judges, people unwilling or unable to take a case all the way through the applet system, or simply nobody having challenged the law in federal court. That an unconstitutional law is on the books today isn't evidence that it is in fact constitutional. That may only be determined once a law has been properly adjudicated in a competent court of law.
Second, the UCMJ is no different than any other law Congress passes. Federal laws protecting national forests and the UCMJ are *identical*, because Congress is only authorized by the Constitution to make two kinds of law: common law, which the UCMJ is, and constitutional law, which must be ratified by the states. Laws against counterfeiting money and the UCMJ: exact same scope and authority.
I do agree, this has become pointless. Nobody here is debating at all besides me, all you have is three or four people all in agreement that I'm wrong, *all of you* refusing to prove it, *all of you* refusing to provide evidence *in any fashion at all* that I'm wrong.
I appreciate disagreement and I appreciate former and current serviceman having a different opinion than my own, but all claims laid here are sorely lacking in substance and entirely unpersuasive. I do not think any of you truly realize the constitutional crises we would have in this country if the UCMJ were allowed to supersede the Constitution, because all laws of Congress would be able to do the very same thing. But since nobody has addressed that point, and in fact nobody has addressed any single point I've made at all, there is little left to do here.
I have a great deal of respect for all of you, and an even greater deal of patience, but not for situations such as this when people don't even bother trying to prove their points. Unsubstantiated opinion is utterly worthless in this context. A person being in the military doesn't change that, anymore than me not being a lawyer makes me wrong. As arrogant as this may sound, this has been argued and subsequently won by myself insofar as any debate can be "won." I don't see how it could be any other way when one side refuses to back up its claims at all.
I apologize to anyone who disagrees or feels upset by this, maybe you should try presenting a real argument next time.
Absent any substantive arguments by the rest of you, I thank the handful of you for the devision from work, and I consider this matter closed.