The UCMJ forbids military members from "contemptuous speech" against the President and others in the chain of command. They may have some Constitutional protections, but they're hardly identical to those of civilians.
Yes, they do. You absolutely give up freedom of speech and any rights of unreasonable search and seizure when you enlist. You don't give up every right, though. You still get the option of a jury trial whenever you want one. A commander's ability to levy administrative punishment relies on you opting in. You always have the option to seek court martial instead, the issue being they can levy much more severe punishments.
Military members still have freedom of speech rights. More tightly regulated in some instances than civilians, but the right isn't taken away. Even as a civilian there are restrictions on your freedom of speech.
Similar for the fourth amendment. There are exceptions for civilians, and a different set of exceptions for military members, based on government need.
The Constitution applies to all US citizens, military or not.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
So are military courts going to close down since we’ve now ended the Afghanistan war? Or is that comma before “militia” going to mean that the time of war phrase is on for people who in a militia?
Whether or not we're in a time of public danger is definitely up for debate, but you can't just leave off the second condition in an or statement and pretend it doesn't exist when trying to claim the statement is false.
Yea I’m on mobile so didn’t want to deal with full quote, it I assumed public danger meant like martial law. Do you know of any precedent on that part?
> Or is that comma before “militia” going to mean that the time of war phrase is on for people who in a militia?
Findlaw (usually reasonably accurate) claims that is the case
> The protection of indictment by grand jury extends to all persons except those serving in the armed forces. All persons in the regular armed forces are subject to court martial rather than grand jury indictment or trial by jury.33 The exception’s limiting words when in actual service in time of war or public danger apply only to members of the militia, not to members of the regular armed forces.
Pretty sure it just means you can’t summarily execute a subordinate during peacetime.
During wartime disobeying a direct order is a serious offense (probably one of the most ‘infamous’ of offenses) but during peacetime you get to have a trial and more than likely not be shot.
The closest thing that's true is this: Constitutional rights are always weighed against some government interest, and there's a lot of deference to the military with regard to government interest. So there may be things on the margins which are unconstitutional in every or nearly every civilian case, but are constitutional in the context of the government's interest in national defense.
However, those rights still exist, and courts must still address those issues through the appropriate balancing test.
