The only flaw in that is that the State Guards are heavily funded by the Federal Government, a condition of which is that they maintain the same readiness standards as the associated Federal service. So, in practice the Governor is the C-in-C, but non-compliance with readiness makes the Guard ineligible for call-up and deployment. The President (Feds) always trumps contrary state law of the State does not want to fully fund its own Guard.
I have no idea what you mean by that. I wrote:
“We are talking about the President’s authority. Keep in mind Congress may not delegate to the President such essential elements of its lawmaking power as its power to declare principles and standards, or general public policy (Lee v. Delmont, 228 Minn. 101: Knight and Wall Co. v. Bryant, 178 So 2d 5, (1965); Nahlen v. Woods, 255 Ark. 974; 16 Am Jur 2D; Constitutional Law, § 337.”
Are we not talking about the powers of the Commander in Chief?
JWK
The Constitution of the United States does not delegate the legislation found in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
JWK
did you not post that the congress makes the rules for the military? guess what, they did. now who’s responsibility is it to enforce them?
not arguing that point. you and i likely agree on it. that doesn’t change the reality of what is and the fact that its not going away. the point is, whether constitutional or not, it does not apply to the military
1 Like
Exactly . . . Congress makes the rules. And as I have been pointing out, the president, as commander in chief, is not free to make up the rules governing the military, e.g. see:
And the reality is, those entrusted to preserve and protect our Constitution are engaging in sedition by perpetuating and enforcing legislation which subverts our written Constitution and its defined and limited grants of power.
JWK
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
true. also not going to change. we have to deal with the reality of what is, not the reality of what should be
the presidents order is completely within his powers as commander in chief as it relates to enforcement of the rules established in the ucmj for fda approved immunizations and follows the rules established by the congress in the ucmj including how to apply for religious exemption and the local commanders responsibility in granting or denying it.
somebody needs to inform this judge that he’s not the commander in chief
while i do sort of agree with his reasoning about the “science”, the same is true about covid at this point.
And that reality is, those entrusted to preserve and protect our Constitution are engaging in sedition by perpetuating and enforcing legislation which subverts our written Constitution and its defined and limited grants of power.
Why do your eyes glaze over the reality that our constitutionally limited, Republican Form of Government is being subvert by the very people entrusted to preserve and protect it?
JWK
Please provide the documentation confirming the President’s Executive Order as detailed in the following article, is within his powers as Commander in Chief.
JWK
The president has a lot of power. The check on a president is his term.
The extent of president’s “power” is defined and limited as stated in our Constitution.
JWK
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
Yes, complete control of the military and the power to pardon any law breaking. These are needed in times on emergency such as a foreign invasion, because congress cannot make decision fast enough in that situation…
Please provide the passage from our Constitution delegating “complete control of the military”
In addition, I suggest you consider what our Founders actually stated with regard to powers of the Commander in Chief, an example of which I posted HERE.
JWK
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
already have, its call the UCMJ. You are free to deny it as you wish.
No. You haven’t. You continually make reference to the UCMJ but fail to provide quotes confirming your assertions. 
Please provide the documentation confirming the President’s Executive Order as detailed in the following article, is within the president’s powers as Commander in Chief.
What is improper sexual conduct under Article 134 of the UCMJ?
JWK
There is no Article 134 for Improper Sexual Conduct.
The word “improper” appears once in the Article 134 chapter and then only in the general description of the chapter.
The word “sex” (as the root of sexual) appears 17 times under the headings of:
- Adultery (x2)
- Child Pornography (x5)
- Wrongful Cohabitation (applicable to fraudulently projecting a legal marital status noting that sex is not require as part of the offense) (x1)
- Prostitution (x9)
Glad to help.
WW
Oh, but you didn’t. You never answered the question:
What is improper sexual conduct under Article 134 of the UCMJ?
"Improper sexual conduct is a relatively vague concept. Article 134 of the UCMJ acts as a catch-all provision that can cover virtually any type of indecent sexual conduct not covered under Article 120.
It can include actions such as:
Adultery
Homosexuality/homosexual acts
Nontraditional sexual arrangements
Rank misconduct between an officer and his or her subordinate
Other consensual sex acts considered indecent
Officers accused of sexual misconduct may also be charged under Article 133 of the UCMJ. This article is similarly vague and encompasses a wide range of acts that the military considers inappropriate.
Military criminal defense Attorney Patrick J. McLain has skillfully handled hundreds of improper sexual conduct cases in courts-martial around the world. He can provide a vigorous defense aimed to protect your military career and your future." SOURCE
JWK
