Posted on Nov 11, 2016
Is it a violation of the UCMJ for an AD SM to call for overturning the results of the election via Faithless Electors?
21.7K
87
70
14
14
0
UCMJ
Election 2016
JAG
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 29
8
8
0
No, I see no military infraction, just poor judgment. IMO, 1st amendment applies.
(8)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
LCDR Thomas Doherty (USNR-R Ret) - You are spinning your wheels, CDR. His mind is made up. Sedition is a real stretch, the Constitution doesn't note faithless electors and article 88 is a stretch, even if it were used for a Commissioned Officer.
(1)
(0)
LCDR Thomas Doherty (USNR-R Ret)
Ya, well within the limits of allowed speech. You can give money to the a PAC, you can speak.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
I'm going to wait and see what JAG (someone on here is JAG says). Until then I'd heed some wise words I remember as a young troop "You can do whatever your collar can support". My collar cannot support much.
(7)
(0)
5
5
0
SN Greg Wright Here is a great article that covers most of the do's and don'ts for active duty personnel when it comes to politics. There are specific UCMJ Articles quoted here, directives, and policy letters that have been published. Check this out. I owe you a vote up as well - all out for the day already!
http://www.court-martial.com/ucmj-and-politics.html
http://www.court-martial.com/ucmj-and-politics.html
UCMJ And Politics :: US Military Political Violation Lawyer Philip D. Cave
Free Consultation - Call (800) 401-1583 - Philip D. Cave is dedicated to serving our clients with a range of legal services including Military Political Violation and UCMJ Defense cases. UCMJ And Politics - US Military Political Violation Lawyer
(5)
(0)
SSG Will Phillips
I would defer to the Colonel's judgement. However, as the military is under civilian control, meaning that a duly elected president is the "Commander and Chief" period! I hated it when president Carter was in office but I sucked it up As did the troops that did not agree with Bush & Obama.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I am not sure what a Faithless Elector might be SN Greg Wright. While most states constitutions provide for winner takes all electors, there are four states which divide the electors based on the votes of that state so that some electors go to one and one or more go to another candidate.
In order to call for overturning an election, the "plaintiff" would have to demonstrate their standing because the only body which could invalidate an election is the US Supreme Court.
If the active duty service member if privately calling for overturning the election then that would not be a violation of the UCMJ. If this member is publicly advocating a forcible overturn then that could be a violation of the UCMJ.
In order to call for overturning an election, the "plaintiff" would have to demonstrate their standing because the only body which could invalidate an election is the US Supreme Court.
If the active duty service member if privately calling for overturning the election then that would not be a violation of the UCMJ. If this member is publicly advocating a forcible overturn then that could be a violation of the UCMJ.
(4)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
A Faithless Elector would be members of a State's electoral collage who cast their votes in contravention of the state vote. For example, (this of course would never happen, but is a good example) if all of California's electors cast their votes for Trump, rather than HRC, which is who Californians elected by a large margin.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Unless something has changed the politics prohibition is in reference to making public statements or visual things in uniform.
While misguided I don't think signing a digital petition Would be in violation of the UCMJ unless there was more to it.
While misguided I don't think signing a digital petition Would be in violation of the UCMJ unless there was more to it.
(3)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
SGM Erik Marquez - I'm out of votes, but you'd get one. Thank you for taking the time to do that. In regards to the 'more' part, wouldn't posting that you did so to social media be just that?
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SPC (Anonymous) - except it is not a violation of law in many states for an elector to vote without regard to the popular vote. And the movement only needs 20 electors to flip. There are more then 20 electors in non legal binding states available.
That said , electors are chosen for their political position and stance the chance of 20 suddenly deciding to go against their longstanding and proven political party choice is almost non existent
That said , electors are chosen for their political position and stance the chance of 20 suddenly deciding to go against their longstanding and proven political party choice is almost non existent
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SN Greg Wright - ask your self... if you were a jury would that be enough for you to vote convict ?
For me I think I'd need an ovbious sign like advocating an elector in a legally binding state to violate state law
Or statements that are prejudicial to good order "if we can't win fair we are going to lie, cheat and steal this vote"
For me I think I'd need an ovbious sign like advocating an elector in a legally binding state to violate state law
Or statements that are prejudicial to good order "if we can't win fair we are going to lie, cheat and steal this vote"
(1)
(0)
1stLt Steven P.
SGM Erik Marquez - It is really sad that we are even thinking about having electors flip their votes. The Electoral College prevents the tyranny of the majority. Whether you are with the result a national popular vote would disenfranchise voters in 32 of the 50 states because those other 18 states population well exceeds the other 32 states.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Sgt Wayne Wood
if no law was broken then the SM is, in fact, committing Sedition. it depends on the state having jurisdiction as to whether the Electors are required to vote according to the results of the popular vote. the Constitution defines Electors, but is silent on how they shall vote.
(0)
(0)
CSM Thomas McGarry
SSG Robert M. - Sarge I'm not sure you are totally correct about this-speaking out against the Commander in Chief is an offense if the person is identified as an Active/Reserve or National Guard Military member-now if this is not done they can certainly express their opinion so long as threat etc are not involved.
(2)
(0)
1stLt Steven P.
It is really sad that we are even thinking about having electors flip their votes. The Electoral College prevents the tyranny of the majority. Whether you are with the result a national popular vote would disenfranchise voters in 32 of the 50 states because those other 18 states population well exceeds the other 32 states.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG Robert M. - If you know such people on active duty who said those things over the past several years, then feel free to share the recording with their chain of command, and see what happens. It was not acceptable then or now. The president is their Commander in Chief, period. They need to gather up their military bearing and deal with it.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
SN Greg Wright Thanks,Greg,caused me to pick up on some good information.I have no educated opinion on this subject,so i will not comment more.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
No, active duty servicemembers have First Amendment rights, as we see here by the many members commenting on controversial topics. There is also no Article of the UCMJ which would apply.
(1)
(0)
LCDR Thomas Doherty (USNR-R Ret)
Col (Join to see) - Well, that proves it, if you say so. If servicemembers can publicly endorse political candidates by donating money to them, and attend rallies not in uniform, then I see no law or regulation specific enough to bar the advocacy mentioned. Look up "void for vagueness."
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Seaman, you are charged to protect and defend the constitution, and follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. If in your case you signed a petition I don't think you have violated anything in the UCMJ. After the inauguration, you must salute and follow your oath.
Let me give you some Chiefly advise young man, your life in the Navy will be so much better under a republican president that under a democratic president. your infrastructure will be better, you will get actual raises in pay. with larger infrastructure (more ships) rates will open up, advancement will more open and some of the recent PC changes will be overturned by the new SECDEF and SECNAV. There was nothing wrong with the traditions in the Navy during my career and the careers of sailors that have succeeded my in the leadership of the Navy.
For legal guidance review Col Burroughs' post
Let me give you some Chiefly advise young man, your life in the Navy will be so much better under a republican president that under a democratic president. your infrastructure will be better, you will get actual raises in pay. with larger infrastructure (more ships) rates will open up, advancement will more open and some of the recent PC changes will be overturned by the new SECDEF and SECNAV. There was nothing wrong with the traditions in the Navy during my career and the careers of sailors that have succeeded my in the leadership of the Navy.
For legal guidance review Col Burroughs' post
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Thanks for your input, Chief! Note that I'm a crusty old vet, though! Welcome to RP. I think you've found a community you will enjoy.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google