Being in the Army, do you think your constitutional rights are violated in some way or form?

2020-05-15T16:52:02-04:00

Open discussion if anyone as an example they have seen, or are dealing with right now. Is their a conflict of interest between UCMJ and our own rights?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2020 4:55 PM

2020-05-15T16:55:09-04:00

What is your example? I'm gathering you wouldn't have popped this question if you didn't have one.

Response by SGT Herbert Bollum made May 15 at 2020 5:05 PM

2020-05-15T17:05:17-04:00

You gave up most of your rights when you joined and swore to follow orders (as long as they are Legal orders).

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2020 5:39 PM

2020-05-15T17:39:45-04:00

Why do we keep getting questions like this when it's a VOLUNTARY FORCE. You chose to join, you signed the form (many multiple times).

In regards to 2A, it's not just the military, weapons aren't allowed on ANY Federal property unless you are a federal agent. They aren't allowed in the barracks because the barracks are mostly full of young, drunk, hormone laden, immature people.
In regards to Free Speech - the military has one thing to control and enforce rank structure...your pay. We need rank structure to work or else we'll be as useful as the Nepal Navy. If we could just tell off anyone and not listen to them without fear of reprisal/reprimand there wouldn't be a rank structure, and we're not evolved enough to pull that off.
You follow the rules you agreed on or else you don't get paid, keep doing it and you're fired. That simple.
And I hate to repeat it but here goes: We don't practice the Constitution, we defend it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2020 5:44 PM

2020-05-15T17:44:20-04:00

No not at all.

Your 2nd amendment rights are not infringed. You can own a firearm you just can’t have it in the barracks. Just like I can’t have a gun at my civilian job in the VA.

Free speech - you can still say what you want in the military, but it’s one of the employers who will hold you accountable for what you say/post online in social media. It’s not really different than any government civilian job. Many government jobs have social media policies. Many of us are restricted by things such as the Hatch act.

You weren’t drafted. You signed up just like a civilian could take a job and choose to abide by the rules of that job. Yes harder to get out of your employment contract than a civilian one, but still no our rights are not being violated.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2020 5:53 PM

2020-05-15T17:53:59-04:00

IMO - Their is zero violations of rights when you voluntarily entering into a contract that holds you to standards within the organization. I see you have sited the 1st and 2nd as your examples in another post. While both of these rights guarantee you the right to have your our expressions and own a fire arm, they do not supersede the right of an establishment to entering into a binding voluntary contract with a person, who with signature and oath, gives said establishment the right to govern their liberties.

What I mean by this is that you are free to express your self through written, verbal and religious beliefs; nothing can take away your freedom to do that. However you signed a contract that you would follow specific protocols that would restrict when this can be done and how it can be done. The military has never said you are not free to express yourself, so long as it is withing your agreed upon contractual parameters. As far as the 2nd, never has the military said that when you serve you are not allowed to own a weapon. There are policies in place on where they can be stored and used. I will tell you all companies have policies such as this. My civilian employer encourages my weapon ownership, but forbids in on their properties.

As far as the COVID restrictions, one could argue that they are over reaching, but this is also not a violation of your rights. There is somewhat of an allowance in law; the justification for law is primarily to the prevention of harm, including paternalistic laws that seek to protect individuals from themselves. So with the restriction they imposed, it would seem the intention is to save us from ourselves. This is like speed limits, or texting and driving laws, even laws such as blood alcohol levels, or drinking age period.

This is all of course only my opinion based on my education and understanding of the law.

Response by SSG Steven Mangus made May 15 at 2020 5:56 PM

2020-05-15T17:56:53-04:00

The services protect democracy. They don't practice the former. We all volunteered fully knowing, we, as servicemembers are held to a higher standard than the other 99% that don't join. So, no, my rights were not infringed ever..

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made May 15 at 2020 5:58 PM

2020-05-15T17:58:09-04:00

No one in the military today was forced to join! Period!
Sorry if someone did not understand the contract they signed, the oath they took.
Suck it up until ETS.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2020 6:19 PM

2020-05-15T18:19:45-04:00

When you raise your hand you are given the privilege to serve. The trade off is that some small freedoms must be shelved for a time.
Some tall bodily about offering up their lives for this great country but balk at having to agree to certain guidelines.
I’ll try to be as PC here as possible: this commitment to our country and her people is greater than self so if you chose to raise your hand then STFU, pay your dues, do the job, and be great fun for the opportunity.

Response by SFC James Cameron made May 15 at 2020 6:27 PM

2020-05-15T18:27:14-04:00

I’ve seen things that I would call borderline as far as due process, but you always have the choice of Court Martial in the UCMJ process.

It’s not the system’s fault if the SM doesn’t fully understand or use it. Unfortunately that’s how things go a lot of times.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made May 15 at 2020 6:57 PM

2020-05-15T18:57:39-04:00

Anyone that’s had a Summary Courts Martial might think so. And as noted, 1st amendment could be questionable. But, as many have stated, AVF, you agreed to the limits imposed.

Response by SFC Bryan Stetzer made May 15 at 2020 8:06 PM

2020-05-15T20:06:37-04:00

I would say yes, youu give up some Constitutional rights when you join the miitary, but that's part of volunteering. Examples? 4th Amendment, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The chain of command can conduct health and welfare, or even search your barracks room, anytime they want. They can also force you to provide urine and blood samples without due process of law. On the civiian side, not even close. Want another? 1st Amendment, freedom of speech. In a civilian job, tell your boss to go f**k himself and you get fired. Army, you can get restriction, extra duty, loss of rank, loss of pay, and even go to jail. Another? 1st Amendment again, freedom of association. By regulation, you cannot belong to certain organizations (i.e. white supremacist, racist, etc). Don't get me wrong, they're a bunch of festering ass-craters, but it's still a limit on free association. How about "off-limits establishments"? This could also be called a limit of freedom of association. Another one, under freedom of speech, is wearing awards and decorations you're not entitled to. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court, and several violators were released, because the Court decided that wearing whatever you wanted, including military decorations, was protected under the 1st Amendment. Try doing that in the Army and see what happens. Shoot, if we really want to go that direction, how about the 3rd Amendment, no quartering of soliders in your home during peacetime? I mean, if they decide to put someone in your barracks room, or even famiy housing, do you have anything to say about it? So yes, you do give up some rights in the interest of good order and discipline.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made May 15 at 2020 8:23 PM

2020-05-15T20:23:07-04:00

There is no conflict, the military cannot ascribe to regular rules and laws. You won’t change them. Many SM’s on there first enlistment feel the same, once you re-enlist you make a decision and the rest is mute.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2020 8:36 PM

2020-05-15T20:36:37-04:00

Good question to explore, we ought to have a reasoned answer.

No, and I think it's hard to argue that anyone does. This is a job you volunteer for so at best some rights are voluntarily surrendered, but more to the issue is that everything is legal. For example, I cannot claim my constitutional rights as a citizen at political event when I show up in uniform and support a certain policy or politician. The position I hold in the service legally overtakes certain rights I had as an ordinary citizen. The same logic is used with most any of our constitutional rights; in order to achieve the intent of government service and uphold certain separations between the military and state its members forfeit certain rights that they would otherwise enjoy as regular citizens. No real violation occurs and the rule of law is upheld through what I see as a system of checks and balances.

I agree with MSG Private RallyPoint Member . A useful point of clarification is to ask whether our legal rights are truly being infringed, or is our sense of entitlement being inconvenienced.

Response by SFC Herve Abrams made May 15 at 2020 9:01 PM

2020-05-15T21:01:54-04:00

First, all government employees, including military employees, are agents of the government. The Constitution places limits and restrictions on what the government, and its agents, may do. For example, the government and its agents may not infringe on the people’s freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc. therefore, the actions of government employees may legally be regulated and restricted to protect the rights of the people.
Next, government employees are also people. As part of the populace, all government employees have certain constitutional rights, but many of those rights only fully apply in their roles as people, not in their roles as government agents. That isn’t to say government employees have no rights, but that those rights can be regulated and restricted. Speech is a good example. As a government employee, your bosses may legally restrict your speech while at work and during tours of duty. Even off duty, government employees who present themselves as such, to the media for example, are subject to those restrictions and limitations.
Lastly, as a member of the military and in duty status, you are on duty 24/7. Members of the military are also subject to additional restrictions and regulations due to the national security responsibilities attached to their duties.

Response by SFC Domingo M. made May 15 at 2020 10:43 PM

2020-05-15T22:43:15-04:00

I always believed my constitutional rights were put on hold for the duration of my career. We live under our own Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and we have an Oath we take every time we sign up, we have a Code of Conduct which tells us how to act in the performance of our duty in most situations. There's not much left up to the imagination.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made May 15 at 2020 11:04 PM

2020-05-15T23:04:23-04:00

Cody, always trying to stir the pot. Because of the duties and regs of the military you have what the call abridged rights, and when you enlisted you swore to them and agreed.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2020 1:10 AM

2020-05-16T01:10:29-04:00

Can you really call it a violation if you knew (or should have known) the conditions of enlistment/appointment/commission?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2020 1:38 AM

2020-05-16T01:38:36-04:00

Response by Cadet 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2020 4:27 AM

2020-05-16T04:27:55-04:00

Of course it is, but shit...part of the game tbh.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made May 16 at 2020 5:17 AM

2020-05-16T05:17:53-04:00

So here is my two cents based on experience in the past running a restaurant franchise as well as opinion mixed in. First the government via health department does have legal right to shutdown a business if you do not follow the established health guidelines. Second how many people you can have indoors in a restaurant is regulated by the Fire Department so that is not new either. Third you need a business license to operate via some kind of document registered with the state secretary of the state you operate in. That specific state establishes requirements to obtain that. So with a restaurant you cannot buy produce for it from a wholesaler with out a state business license and without a tax exemption certificate from the state. So they can screw with you there. So in my view the restaurant operational restrictions are all legal and based on past precedent.

I agree with you on the shelter in place orders though but only as they relate to civilians not military. I think it depends on the state your in. Here in Texas they think they have legal authority because earlier they passed a fairly recent (within last 25 years) law that states in declared States of Emergency the State can order people to remain in their homes. I'm not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt but I would expect this could be legally challenged as the state would have to prove to a court that the state of emergency was valid and based on a real concern about the overall safety or well being of the larger population. I think you could easily argue (again not a lawyer), that the State of Texas has not met that burden with this virus as it did not declare states of Emergencies given past outbreaks of Corona Virus' which we still do not have vaccines for. That's if you had the money and time to challenge this Texas State Law.

As for the military it is more complex because the DoD is supposed to maintain good order and discipline and I would think that extends to good health as well as readiness of the overall force (APFT tests). So because they are also concerned with overall readiness as well of each unit that is deployable. I don't think your going to be able to challenge the law or orders on the military side of the fence. As others have stated because I think this is one of the sacrifices you make when you enlist. Long winded answer and also again, not a lawyer, just what I would expect not really knowing.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2020 7:03 AM

2020-05-16T07:03:03-04:00

As long as we are not forcing individuals into the service i see no issue. Taking away the rights of individuals through forced service i see as a violation of rights.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 16 at 2020 8:34 AM

2020-05-16T08:34:46-04:00

No. All of us signed an employment contract with a behavioral clause. No one forced us to do it. You agreed to abide by the terms of the UCMJ. No one took anything from you.

Response by SSG William Zopff III made May 16 at 2020 8:57 AM

2020-05-16T08:57:27-04:00

After 22 years of service, with my experiences managing and mentoring soldiers. The UCMJ and military services does infringe upon our constitutional rights, by design, military service has to be the soldiers (airmen, marines & sailors) lead by the officers. It won’t work any other way. But remember, you volunteered to for-go your rights to serve your country. So, don’t make an issue out of nothing. The UCMJ helps more than it hurts; if you fall directly under the necessities of the UCMJ, then your just realizing Justice to correct your behavior.

Response by SSgt Max Gonzales made May 16 at 2020 11:40 AM

2020-05-16T11:40:48-04:00

When I was in, there were times I felt that my superiors were overstepping their boundaries. I was in any way a model soldier, but I would be called on the carpet when things would happen. I believe they just assumed it was me and took action.

Response by SGM Larry Jones made May 16 at 2020 3:55 PM

2020-05-16T15:55:33-04:00

No conflict. You sign on the dotted line so suck it up and play by the rules.

Response by MAJ John Lavin made May 16 at 2020 8:50 PM

2020-05-16T20:50:33-04:00

In some areas being in the Army gives you Civil Rights protections you could never afford in civilian life. For example in the Army you have a right to go to the JAG if you are subjected to fraudulent treatment because you are a soldier for legal advise. Total cost to you for seeking the advise from the JAG, Zero. Try getting free services from a Civilian Lawyer. I got free representation from a JAG because I had a car loan that I paid off and all of a sudden it started getting letters demanding additional payments. I had proof that I paid the off the loan but I kept getting threatening letters. One letter from the JAG fixed the whole mess. My fee from the JAG, Zero.

Response by SGT Robert Wager made May 17 at 2020 7:37 AM

2020-05-17T07:37:03-04:00

I always told my soldiers they should have read the full contract before they signed it.

When people thank you for your service and sacrifice, they understand that as a soldier you are giving up some of your “rights” to protect all of theirs. While you are under contract you are governed by the UCMJ. You can be criminally charged for words, deeds, and attitudes that are not criminal acts in the civilian world. Violation of Article 91 for example is a criminal act that can land you in jail for 9 months for being “disrespectful” towards an NCO. Imagine if that was a crime in the civilian world.

Response by SPC Colin Jenks made May 17 at 2020 8:34 AM

2020-05-17T08:34:10-04:00

I dont feel any rights are violated as a SM. UCMJ affords you a fair a speedy trial of your peers. Which in the military its more of your peers than in the civilian world. You still have the right to free speech, just use your brain. You don't go to rallys and speak in uniform for most things. Freedom of religion? I was once told by a Chaplin, chaplains are huge on their rights and protecting the rights of SMs.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made May 17 at 2020 8:40 AM

2020-05-17T08:40:58-04:00

Opinions, or complaints, that servicemen give up their rights are mixing apples and oranges. The military is a national asset designed to operate independent from those institutions that facilitate the administration of many of the rights the military is designed to protect.
First, the "good order and discipline" features are present to ensure rules are in place to afford control of a large group of people who are expected to be ready to react to an emergency situation on short notice and serve away from our civil judicial and law enforcement structures. The UCMJ affords responsibilities to personnel filling certain billets that would normally be exercised by a police department or civil judge because the military is designed to operate away from the civilian police force and judicial system. Conforming to orders and directions exercised by seniors without question is a requirement that prepares individuals and organizations for combat. I assure you that instantaneous response to a seniors decision without discussion is an absolute requirement in combat. Even as a pilot, when I, as the aircraft commander made a decision to subject my people and aircraft to seemingly deadly enemy fire to medevac a wounded Marine, there was no time for a group discussion between my crew and they all had to perform as expected for the mission to be successful. If one crewman decided that he was to tired and wanted to call in sick, the danger to the rest of the crew might have been deadly.
Why are we prohibited from exercising our right to express our political opinions in uniform? In many third world nations the political stability and governmental structure cannot be maintained without considering the attitudes of the military. Thankfully, our transfers of power have been a result of elections, in which individual military participate, but our military organizations are not led by their commanders to influence the outcome. The prohibition of using our uniforms or our status as military is a real expression of our nation being run by citizens, not by institutions (I know this could be another discussion, but let's ignore that for this discussion).
Whether you volunteer or are pressed into military service, the overall service must live its daily life as it is expected to serve in battle. Can you imagine having a pre deployment class on which rules and regulations are only applicable to either the battle or peacetime environment?

Response by CPL Sarah Stilwell made May 18 at 2020 11:31 PM

2020-05-18T23:31:42-04:00

I think my religious practices may have been impacted, but I felt like I waived those right went I knowingly joined at a time of war. It's not reasonable to tell a pilot who crashed in the desert to hold on another hour because I need to read my daily psalms. It's my job to get him out. We can thank god later

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2020 3:34 AM

2020-05-19T03:34:21-04:00

Easy answer? Freedom of speech is strongly limited. Open criticism of superiors can be punishable. Expressing religious opinions on gays, divorce., abortions (other opinionated realms) can be punishable . Tact, timing and audience must be important... These rules were the same with draft or volunteer Army.....officers need be extra careful especially in political comments.....and Facebook & Twitter can be used against you

Response by SFC Carlos Cruz made May 19 at 2020 6:49 PM

2020-05-19T18:49:51-04:00

Some people feel like a nut, some people don’t. No one constitutional have being violated, you join & wasn’t drafted lol

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made May 19 at 2020 9:50 PM

2020-05-19T21:50:15-04:00

There aren’t any constitutional rights or rights in the military. You signed up. End of the story.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2020 9:56 PM

2020-05-19T21:56:26-04:00

Think I have an overwhelming amount of points beating the dead horse. Thank you all. Next time I’m catching wing of this type of discussion by soldiers I’ll make sure u mention these points. This post was not for me...cz your preaching to the quire if your directing at me...I’m well aware what I got myself into... ehh some things can definitely change regarding firearms on base buuuuuut that just my opinion

. this post is for the individuals that don’t know what they signed up for.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2020 5:39 AM

2020-05-20T05:39:19-04:00

You openly gave up those rights so I don't believe there is a conflict.

Response by Pvt SanJuana Méndez made Jun 8 at 2020 12:27 AM

2020-06-08T00:27:08-04:00

Have spent nearly 21 years trying to hold USMC & DoD responsible for wrongful separation & PTSD due to discrimination. Way I was discharged nearly 49 yrs ago has directly affected my life. Only having been in Boot one week when my only remaining parent was killed in traffic accident, I went to recruiter one wk after 10-day emergency leave began & requested indefinite leave of absence. Instead of being informed there was no such thing & being offered hardship, recruiter suggested it would be more beneficial for siblings I'd raised 5 yrs after our father was similarly killed if I returned to duty, & he extended leave. Few wks after trying to focus on my training, CO told me I was getting my way. Was told how separation hearing would proceed but nothing more was disclosed before, during or after hearing.

I have discovered many ways my rights were violated, in the course of nearly 49 yrs since. Some 2 months after separation, I called recruiter's aide to update them on my progress. Was traumatic, learning 2 months after this virtual rape (stripped of rights & choice) that I hadn't actually gotten my way. Learned at this time what DD-214 was, what RE code (mine was 4, couldn't reenlist as Marine or in any other branch). Wasn't told that I was still military personnel up to 1st anniversary of discharge date. Learned 28 yrs after teetering between being veteran & not, after being denied healthcare as "true" veteran's spouse, after veteran preference made no difference in efforts to advance as state employee, after credit status ruined 'cause I couldn't get financial aid for advanced education, that I learned I could proudly say I AM a veteran. Vulnerable after trauma of learning I hadn't actually gotten my way at separation, went to work for "friend" of my mom who set me up to be raped by her son. Endured 5 yrs of domestic violence that began with his impregnating me & my having our 1st child 5 days before 1st anniversary of day I was separated from Corps. Fled from this union to protect my children from their father's violence, but not before I'd suffered so much trauma that I became depressed.

All this led to smoking, excessive drinking, promiscuity & low self esteem. After enduring several yrs of emotional abuse in 2d marriage, sought mental healthcare that eventually led to diagnosis of depression. First time I sought medical attention after learning I was eligible for healthcare at V.A., I asked to be seen at mental health unit, where doc I saw suggested I attend women's PTSD group sessions. I believe this doc suspected depression was due to PTSD but he died before I realized his suspicion was correct. I believe he would have diagnosed PTSD. No other doc has accepted that life-altering situations are as traumatic as life-threatening situations, so I've continuously been denied compensation for "injury" I incurred when I was led to believe I WAS actually getting my way, simply 'cause DoD has decreed that PTSD can only be life-threatening. And yet, many military women physically raped during active duty have been compensated based on PTSD. Apparently, DoD feels Armed Forces are blameless if they strip a woman of her military rights, making her vulnerable, & she's physically raped before 1st anniversary of discharge. Never mind that, after failing to ensure a quota of women enlistees, they--like Pontius Pilate--washed their hands of me less than 2 wks before I would have ceased to be a recruit (90 days during wartime) & become a full-fledged Private.

Response by SGT Mary G. made Jun 29 at 2020 4:03 PM

2020-06-29T16:03:31-04:00

I came to the personal conclusion about that question while serving that being in the military is about "insuring" everyone's constitutional rights, I considered that UCMJ demands more of us for the purpose of accountability and structure that is essential to how the military successfully functions.