The Glade 4.0

I'm thinking the problem's still yours. The president is commander in chief and Congress is clearly and specifically empowered to regulate the military.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss everything in Article 1 section 8 is the power of Congress - does that mean the Supreme Court cannot rule on any laws Congress makes?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That's irrelevant, the jurisdiction of the USSC isn't being questioned.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Exce[t that you're completely full of ****, and I have never said any such thing. As usual, you're more interested in trying to sound cool than actually addressing anything.

1) The military being beholden to the people is expressed in the fact that they answer to the President. The military cannot act on its own.
2) It is also expressed in the fact that their budget and rules are under the control of Congress
3) Answering to the Courts is not answering to the people at all. The Courts are specifically set up to be as immune from "ansering to the people" as possible
4) There is no problem with the Supreme Court ruling on whether actions by the military, or actions by Congress or the President in controlling them, are constitutional. The problem lies in lower courts ruling on internal military policy. These courts are not an alternate chain of command for the dissatisfiied, nor should they be a way for certain citizens to appropriate for themselves the powers reserved to Congress or the President.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not at all. The Supreme Court would simply have original jurisdiction over the case. There's nothing stopping them from having that; the Constitution only says what cases they automatically have it in; it does not prevent them from having it in any other cases.

In fact, Khross's point is not "very valid" in fact it isn't valid at all; it's an example of him putting his silly ... out there and pretending someone has said something outrageous when in fact its perfectly in line with the Constitution.

The fact is that the lower Courts are entirely created by Congress:



specifically mentioned when the powers of Congress were cited in theis thread, but conveniently forgotten in the rush to pretend that someone was saying that actions regarding the military were somehow immune from any form of judicial review. The only Court that is required to exist by the Constitution is the USSC.

The fact of the matter is that Congress can remove jurisdiction from any Federal court below the Supreme Court any time it pleases. This has been repeatedly ruled on and upheld by the USSC.

What I'm saying is that Congress should remove the power to rule on internal military matters from any court other than the USSC, except for the criminal trials of military personnel which should remain under the UCMJ. This is within Congress's power. District and appelatte courts should not be hearing cases regarding the military. No one has claimed that those lower courts don't have the power now; my position is that power should be removed in the future.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You know, as soon as it comes to matters of law enforcement and the military, you honestly do get stupid out of some sort of defense mechanism, Diamondeye. Because, honestly, WHAT **** APPEAL SYSTEM IS SOMEONE GOING TO USE AFTER THEY'VE BEEN DISMISSED FROM THE GOD DAMNED MILITARY? Hopefully the little spree of Caps Lock text will open your eyes.

_________________

Those courts are the only way the USSC ever sees any cases at all.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It's pretty obviously from Article III that you're talking out of your *** on issues related to the military ... again, Diamondeye.

Show me the special dispensation in the Constitution that excludes or should exclude the military from normal juridical procedure.

_________________

Why son't you quit your **** whining you self-righteous, pompous *******? This is just another example of you not knowing wht the **** you're talking about, yet comeing in here slinging bullshit as if you were some sort of expert on the matter at hand.

The bottom line here is that you didn't even bother to think the issue through, you just saw something you could bellyache about being somehow "authoritarian" or some ****, started calling it out, and didn't even bother to comprehend the position you were arguing against.

Don't give me theis Appeal to Motive "defense mechanism" bullshit, either. That's just you trying to swing the emphasis onto me personally in order to avoid addressing the issue. "Oh, well DE has a defense mechanism so he can't possibly have a point! Just listen to me, I'm Khross, and I **** know everything about everything because I read a lot and like to type ... whenever someone says something I dislike because its impossible anyone could disagree with me!"

If you weren't so intent on being a ****, it might have occured to you that there is no reason anyone should have an appeal after being dismissed from the military as long as the military applied its own rules. People should not be able to appeal questions of their personal suitability for military service to the courts; courts are completely unqualified to make that decision. People get dismissed allt he time for being overweight or being unable to pass their physical fitness test, oh I guess they should be able to challange the Constitutionality of having to run 2 miles in a certain time! Obviously if fatbodies can't appeal their chapter case, the military is getting "special treatment" and isn't under the control of the people.

If there's a problem with the Constitutionality of the military's rules, the Supreme Court can hear those cases. If its a question of whether the military followed its own rules the USSC can hear those or if there are too many, Congress can create a special Military Review court outside the military or UCMJ to handle those cases on an individual basis.

But hey, why think things through when you can get into a screaming fit of hystrionics? Oh that's right, because I pointed out a Constitutional fact that you forgot, and we just **** can't have that, can we? If its a question of language, history, the Constitution, other legalities, economics, or any form of social matter whatsoever, Khross has the final **** say! Especially don't point out that he's misunderstood your position or some fact he overlooked! That's just not acceptable, and he'll BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON BECAUSE HE'S SUCH A **** TOUGH GUY RARRRRRRRR!!!!!111!!!ONEHUNDREDTHOUSAND.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They absolutely are not. They are the way it sees the vast majority of its cases because that's the established system. Nothing says it has to be that way in all cases. Just because it is that way doesn't mean it has to stay that way or it should be that way.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't need to. I haven't excluded them from normal jurisprudence. Congress can set up inferior courts any way it pleases. It can create special inferior courts for any matter it wants, or it can create none at all or eliminate those that exist.

The only person talking out their *** here is you. I don't need to cite any Constitutional reason that Congress should set up lower courts in any particular way. It can do whatever it damn well pleases in that regard. The only thing it can't do is limit the jurisdiction of or eliminate the USSC.

All you're doing is arguing against a strawman position I haven't taken, and continuing to do so after I explained I didn't have it.

You will now show evidence that Congress can no longer change the way the inferior Federal courts work even though it has that power or shut the **** up. OR you'll do neither and continue making a total fool of yourself. You pick.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, the Constitution has the final say. So, again, show me where the Constitution excludes/exempts the military from normal juridical procedure? Can you? You have Article I, Section 8, which is important to note because it designations military regulation as a legislative matter. You the entire text of Article III which dictates the "Judicial Power" of the U.S. Court System and provides no declination of power for lower courts. So, please, do tell us where the special exemption comes from. More to the point, please explain how people removed via an Executive Position (subject to Court review because of U.S. v. Nixon) would have any avenue to challenge the legitimacy and constitutionality of those actions without lower courts, seeing as how the Supreme Court is an appellate that has very little in the way of original jurisdiction.

You can get all huffy and puffy, but you're just talking out of your ***. There's nothing in the Constitution to substantiate your claims or position, which in point of fact argues that we should provide undue protection to the military.

And, just to point out that I'm exactly right and you want special dispensation of rules for the military:Those people do have a reason to appeal after being dismissed. They challenged the Constitutionality of that dismissal in Federal Court. Those dismissals were found lacking by a "lower Court" well within its Constitutional jurisdiction as stated in Article III. More to the point, you can't escape the very real impact of U.S. v. Nixon which extends judicial review to actions of the Executive Office.

So, stop talking out of your *** because your pet military got scolded for being stupid and following an unconstitutional rule. Stop trying to shield the military from a legitimate check on both the Executive and Legislative Branches: the Federal Court system.

_________________

You're arguing for what "should be." That's all fine, and is another issue. However, right now, to get the USSC to look at something, you start with the lower courts. If this case could have been started at the supreme court level, you don't think the people involved would have done so?

Now, it may yet be decided by the USSC, but if this court had not looked at the case, the USSC would never have heard of it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Oh, and by the way, the only histrionics in this thread are yours. I posted a very valid and reasonable point: the Constitution provides for none of the dispensation you're arguing exists/should exists. And juridical history indicates, quite clearly, that the Courts do have those power. It likewise gives the lower Courts in the Federal system the same jurisdiction as the Supreme Court, which includes all these things you think should be exempt from normal juridical procedure. Like I said, you get stupid when it comes to the military.

Oh, and that reminds me, if people shouldn't be allowed to appeal because the "military followed its own rules", then what prevents it from establishing bad rules?

_________________

Yes, I'm arguing what should be. I'm saying that Congress should make changes so that this is not repeated in the future. Why exactly you're explaining back to me the same thing I'm saying is beyond me. I'm saying that this is a problem because Congress has allowed lower courts to rule on this matter, they shouldn't have, and they need to make changes so that this isn't repeated.



Obviously. However, if Congress had limited jurisdiction properly in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem. What I'm saying is that this case never should have been handled in this way in the first place, but since it was, changes should now be made so that this doesn't happen in the future.\

Obviously Congress can't retroactively do it; that would be ex post facto law.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again, the jurisdiction of the lower Courts is the same as that of the Supreme Court, per the Constitution, in this matter.

_________________

You did no such thing. I didn't argue that the Constitution creates such a dispensation; I argued Congress has the power to create it by changing jurisdictions below the USSC. The Constitution doesn't need to explain why it should exist; all it needs to do is give Congress the ability to do it (which it does).



No one has argued otherwise. I have said that Congress should change the jurisdiction of the courts so they do not have it in the future.



It gives them jurisdiction "under such regulations as Congress shall make". You can't argue that the current situation is a reason the current situation should remain the current situation.



You can say it all day long, but you're still wrong, and just acting like a resentful little snot. You just get stupid when it comes to the Constitution which you clearly do not understand.



Gee, you mean aside from the need to defeat enemies in combat? Why exactly would they establish rules that run counter to that purpose?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And again, like I just explained, that's the current situation. It is not "per the Constitution" at all, it is per Congress.

"under such regulations as Congress shall make".

Quit ignoring the parts you don't like/

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, I believe running a deficit in any given year should trigger an immediate election of all levels of the government that ran the deficit. But we cannot all get what we want. As it current stands, the DADT Ruling was made by a court that had jurisdiction.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Not ignoring any parts I don't like. Jurisdiction is clearly defined for the Federal Court system in the Constitution. In fact, Jurisdiction is pretty much devoid of any regulation precisely for that matter.

_________________

"Under such regulations as Congress shall make".

Any time you want to stop pretending I claimed any "special exemption" we can start having a real discussion. As long as you keep pretending I said that, you're just blowing **** smoke.

As for executive positions, completely irrelevant.



You can keep getting huffy and puffy and keep pretending I said that, or you can start really discussing my position which is that Congress should not allow lower courts to make such rulings in the future, and really should have changed the structure of lower courts a long time ago so that this never happened.



No they don't. The Congres explicitly has the power to make rules for the military. It made a rule that gay people are not qualified to serve openly. End of story. "I don't like that I can't serve" is not a valid Constitutional challange, and in any case, the fact that they challanged the Constitutionality is not an argument that the method that exists for challanging it is appropriate in the first place you **** moron. You're just arguing the status quo should remain the status quo because it is the status quo.

Moreover, that lower court has no jurisdiction in Article III. It has jurisdiction created by Congress under Article III: "under such regulations as Congress may direct". Your continued failure to grasp this is why you're makign such idiotic claims. Nixon is irrelevant; no one has argued that the military is immune from judicial review; I have argued that the USSC is the appropriate Court to do so, and that Congress should change the structre and jurisdiction of lower courts to refelct this, possibly including a special court to review the proper handling of individual cases if their volume is too great for the USSC.

No one has argued that the District court could hear the case as the structure of jurisdiction stands now, my point is that it never should have been set up that way in the first place.



Why don't you stop having temper tantrum and pretending you're "scolding" anyone? You don't understand how the Constitution works, you don't understand my argument, and all you're doing is continuing to pretend I argued for some special exeemption hoping if you repeat it enough times it will convince people.

Grow the **** up. Every time someone disagrees with you on any pet topic of yours, from the Constitution to **** video games, we get some pompous lecture that indicates nothing other than your own colossal ego.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It is not. It is defined as "under such regulation as Congress may direct." Period. The only jurisdiction defined is where the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction and appelate jurisdiction. The USSC has upheld this repeatedly; Congress may assign jurisdiction to lower courts however it pleases.

The only argument you can make is that Congress must therefore create inferior courts of some sort. It says nothing about their structure or which ones should have what type of jurisdiction. There is no reason there could not be a special court that hears the cases of individuals challenging their removal from the military.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's nice. So what? Aside from the fact that you don't live in this country and so therefore what you want counts even less than my 1/300,000,000 or so of the aggegate opinion, the fact that my desire probably won't happen is not a reason why it shouldn't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

I'm fairly certain the only tantrum and misrepresentation of fact in this thread belongs to you.

1. Don't Ask;Don't Tell was an executive policy, not a legislative policy.

2. Executive policies are subject to judicial review: See U.S. v. Nixon.

3. Legislative policies are subject to judicial review: See Marbury v. Madison and pretty much every other case in the judicial review establishment bloc.

4. The Jurisdiction of the lower courts is protected by the Constitution and placed on equal footing with that of the Supreme Court. Indeed, there are very, very few situations in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and there exists no law or Constitutional provision preventing the Supreme Court from delegating a case to a lower federal court.

So, once again ...

The "Lower" Court is not regulating the military. It is regulating an executive policy. The "Lower" Court is not overstepping its bounds and absolutely is not (nor should not be) an improper avenue to challenge the questionable rules and constitutionality of U.S. military behavior. But, even so, if you were truly concerned about the rule of law, you'd be calling for the disbanding of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. I'll let you figure out why both are problematic from a Constitutional standard.

Oh, and ... since you apparently missed it:
Guess that means the Federal Court has jurisdiction over the matter regardless of Congressional "regulation" you so keep hoping exists. Kind of funny that you're actually doing all the things you accuse me of doing. And since that doesn't affect "ambassadors, public ministers and other consults", that means it by default has appellate jurisdiction, which secures, constitutionally, the jurisdiction of the lower courts.

Now, if we actually had a Constitutional Army, it'd be an issue of individuals vs. states, which absolutely reserves the jurisdiction for the Supreme Court.

_________________

No, it was Congress.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html