The courts have decided a lot of stuff wrongly. Once it’s run the course of the Constitution’s process for resolving cases it has to be abided by. At that point the way to resolve the issue is to amend the Constitution so that it specifically and explicitly states the matter.
But Congress is not allowed to make laws or regulations that violate the Bill of Rights, so Congress can’t make rules and regs that disallow blacks from serving in the military merely because they are blacks, for instance. And those are the grounds that are being used to argue the DADT - that it is discrimination based on sexual orientation. I don’t believe that it is discrimination against the person but a measure to protect everybody from exploiting or being victimized by a situation where people of the same gender bunk, shower, etc together. A person could say it is discrimination if the military says an officer can’t sleep with somebody under their command, but the officer could still sleep with that person if they wanted to - they’d just lose their job. The bill of rights don’t ever say that a person has to be free of any consequences for their actions. An employer has the right to establish standards and order within the ranks. So basically I don’t buy into this being a Bill of Rights issue.
But the process that allows us to have order gives the courts the final say. If the public believes that a decision has violated the Constitution they can bring other cases and hope for a different result, which would probably only happen if they first impeached a justice or two or if some justices were replaced. Or they can amend the Constitution.
That’s how the process works. If the courts refuse to resolve a question of Constitutionality, then an officer can only go by their conscience. SCOTUS needs to know that the consequence of refusing to do their Constitutional duty is the breakdown of military cohesion. If they won’t rule then the officers have no choice but to act according to their own consciences, and that puts the nation in potentially critical risk. That is how serious SCOTUS’ constitutional duty is.
That is where we’re at right now. This Constitutional crisis is far more serious than most people believe.
close except where you say “an officer can’t sleep with somebody under their command, but the officer could still sleep with that person if they wanted to - they’d just lose their job.”
They are subject to the UCMJ and there have been plenty of cases where officers have gotten much worse then “losing their job” for fraternization. Including fines, jail time, loss of rank, Bad Conduct Discharges (which are punitive and carry a severe burden when attempting to find a job outside), etc
Really? Soldiers are ordered into combat. Civilians are not. Ordering a soldier to risk his life is constitutional. Ordering a civilian to engage an enemy in combat is not.