tmpressure
New Member
Hey guys,
I know that this was done a while ago, but I only recently stumbled on this site and thought I would get a more professional take on this than what I get from my normal message boards.
(I also know that this was taken care of by congress, but this is more of a philosophical [maybe jurisdictional?] question than a question of politics or beliefs)
Here is the question, now that my preamble is finished...when the civilian court ruled that DADT was unconstitutional, how was that within their bounds?
If the military has its own separate judiciary, where is the call for a civil court to be able to mandate their policy? I have heard that the civil court has appellate authority over the military justice system, so was it done on a basis of appeals?
And if not, what is to stop them from trying to legislate more from the bench, and start calling out other military decisions as unconstitutional as they see fit? e.g. "This war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional, so you guys need to get out"
Obviously that is an extreme example, but I am just using it to illustrate my point.
I am not a lawyer, so though I can research strands, I can't see the whole web. I feel like I have to be missing something or more people would jump up and say,"Hey the civil courts don't have the authority to dictate military policy."
And again, this isn't about for or against DADT, just the logistics of how it was accomplished, and whether or not this is a foreshadowing of a dangerous path to begin walking.
Thanks guys!
I know that this was done a while ago, but I only recently stumbled on this site and thought I would get a more professional take on this than what I get from my normal message boards.
(I also know that this was taken care of by congress, but this is more of a philosophical [maybe jurisdictional?] question than a question of politics or beliefs)
Here is the question, now that my preamble is finished...when the civilian court ruled that DADT was unconstitutional, how was that within their bounds?
If the military has its own separate judiciary, where is the call for a civil court to be able to mandate their policy? I have heard that the civil court has appellate authority over the military justice system, so was it done on a basis of appeals?
And if not, what is to stop them from trying to legislate more from the bench, and start calling out other military decisions as unconstitutional as they see fit? e.g. "This war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional, so you guys need to get out"
Obviously that is an extreme example, but I am just using it to illustrate my point.
I am not a lawyer, so though I can research strands, I can't see the whole web. I feel like I have to be missing something or more people would jump up and say,"Hey the civil courts don't have the authority to dictate military policy."
And again, this isn't about for or against DADT, just the logistics of how it was accomplished, and whether or not this is a foreshadowing of a dangerous path to begin walking.
Thanks guys!