Comments on: Gay Soldiers Need This Immunity Law to Even Tell Congress About DADT Law

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:01:23 +0000

@tavdy79: The difference is that when you join the military, you enter into a contractually binding relationship in which you knowingly sacrifice some of your rights for the greater good of the country.

This is why soldiers can’t sue their commanding officers for knowingly ordering them into positions where they could be injured or killed. If a civilian did that, it would be negligent homicide. In the military, it is just status quo.

By: Taylor Siluwé

Taylor Siluwé — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:53:28 +0000

Wow. The HOT Act. Interesting.

By: what

what — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:02:26 +0000

The First Amendment is not absolute. This has been ruled over and over again. I could give a thousand examples from the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” to someone working for the CIA speaking about state secrets. On top of this, the military has been excluded from much of the Constitution(al rights) for a very long time.

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:11:32 +0000

It’s just occurred to me that DADT might actually be invalid under the First Amendment. It does, after all, require the federal & state governments to protect citizens’ right to free speech, and DADT denies LG servicement and women that right on pain of losing their job.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:14:03 +0000

I note the initials of name of the act with irony.

Honest and Open Testimony.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:15:31 +0000

What a sick sad country we live in.

By: Attmay

Attmay — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:02:04 +0000

“Can you imagine legislators having to pass a law so, say, Wall Street bankers could openly identify as Wall Street bankers to they could testify before Congress and plead for their help?”

That’s a weak analogy. For one thing, Wall Street is not a function of the government. It is part of the private sector. The military is a function of the government, authorized by the Constitution.