Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
The silly political season has passed for a short period of time. Bet’s are on now for the presidential silly season having started, etc.
During the campaign of now senator elect x, the issue of her political statements and her reserve officer obligations came up. That is an interesting topic of discussion. Before entering the discussion I’d first recommend reading “Odd Clauses;” then the actual text of Article 88,UCMJ,and then some other cases on what it means to be an ‘officer.’ under the constitution, etc.
By serendipity I’d been put onto Odd Clauses by a friend and had read it after the x issue arose. And I had completed the first chapter when I learned Oklahoma has apparently amended its constitution to allow legislators to be members of the armed forces, which a U.S. elected official maybe cannot. See Jay Wexler, The Odd Clauses: Understanding the Constitution through Ten of Its Most Curious Provisions, (2012). Anyway.
I was directed to Stein v. Dowling. You may remember he made some public statements that were considered improper and administrative discharge proceedings were initiated. You can read about why he lost at the district court level. Dwight “ML” Sulllivan commented on the case here, and discussed it at a Yale conference on 8 November in the context of intersections between law and technology – a must (intentionally mispelled) interesting discussion – indeed.