Orbitsurg,
I'm sorry if you feel these are ad hominem attacks. I actually rewrote that sentence a few times trying to be more civil. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to respectfully and tactfully point out that you have some rather.... civilian .... notions of how things work in the military. Such notions would, of course, cause you to be extremely dissatisfied when they conflict with how things
are.
The courts, so far, have sided with the government and against the servicemembers in the handful of cases that have been brought (three, total, last I read). So far, I have not read where the government has been found liable for damages for these involuntary extensions. That would be an interesting test of the notion of the uniqueness of the government's privilege to make contracts that it may later breach with impunity.
I'm not a lawyer, and have no formal legal training, but I have an avid (albeit amateur) interest in constitutional law.
As far as I remember, every case you have read about, and several similar ones that arose long before the second gulf war, hinge on one major principle that people keep forgetting about: under article 2 of the consitution, the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The supreme court has interpreted this over the years as that he has broad powers when it comes to running the military, and due to the interest the country has in not diluting those powers, courts have historically deferred to the executive branch in running the military.
(Incidentally, I think this is the same rationale whereby discrimination against homosexuals is still allowed, and even heterosexual adultery is still a prosecutable offense)
Secondly, another question is: are the contracts even broken????? I went through my old files, and found one of my old contracts (SF form 4/2 dated May 1988). On the contract is a page entitled "Partial Statement of Existing Laws of the United States". Here are some pertinent exerpts:
9 (a) My enlistment is more than an employment agreement.
9 (c) In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States (note: don't know if legally, this means legal state of "War" as only congress can declare, or "war" as commonly defined by combat actions. I suspect the former, but again, I'm not a lawyer)
10 (d) - as a member of the ready reserve I may be required to perform active duty without my consent (note: anyone discharged from the military with less than 8 years service is in the ready reserve, until they reach the 8 year mark)
10 (d)(1.) In time of national emergency declared by the President of the United States, I may be ordered to active duty (other than for training) for not more than 24 consecutive months.
<end exerpts>
So to be completely honest with you, all the people who are filing legal suits against the military to be let out have pretty little to stand on.
There have been cases where the Navy has lost civil suits and refused to pay anyway; the USDOJ had to intervene. (I rather relish the thought of a U.S. Marshal bringing a Navy flag officer in front of a U.S. magistrate).
As interesting as that may be, when the matter eventually got to the supreme court, I think the US magistrate would find himself slapped down. Unless, of course, the naval officer was brought in for personal actions, not for actions he took while acting as a representative of the President of the United States (commissioned officer). Still, I'd be interested in links to those cases you talk about, where the Navy lost a civil suit and refused to pay.
)
