Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFew modern presidents surrounded themselves with as many current and former military officers
The Atlantic @TheAtlantic 2h2 hours agoRear Admiral Ronny Jacksons appointment reinvigorates the debate over the proper relationship between the military and the civil government, writes @steve_vladeck https://theatln.tc/2GIbOEm
___President Trumps announcement on Wednesday that he is nominating his White House physicianRear Admiral Ronny Jacksonto replace David Shulkin as secretary of veterans affairs has reinvigorated a long-running debate over the proper relationship between the military and the senior echelons of the civil government. Indeed, few modern presidents have surrounded themselves with as many current and former flag officersincluding retired General James Mattis as secretary of defense; John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, as secretary of homeland security and then White House chief of staff; and H.R. McMastera three-star Army generalas the outgoing national-security adviser (who himself succeeded retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn)...
As the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has concluded, the dual-officeholding ban embodies an important policy designed to maintain civilian control of the Government, and serves to bar the appointment of regular military officers to any appointive positions in the civil government, irrespective of the importance of the office, the permanence of the appointment, or the likelihood of interference with the officers military duties. After all, as one of the original sponsors of the billMassachusetts Senator Charles Sumnerargued, allowing active-duty military officers to hold such positions would be in conflict with the fundamental principle of republican institutions, since it would imply that questions of civilian governance would be resolved, in the first instance, by the military. In that regard, the dual-officeholding ban serves much the same purpose as the Posse Comitatus Actthe 1878 law that bars domestic use of the military for ordinary law enforcement absent express congressional authorization.
As with the Posse Comitatus Act, Congress has carved out a handful of exceptions to the dual-officeholding ban over the course of its history (providing, for example, that the CIA director can be an active-duty officer). But those exceptions prove the rule, and the dual-officeholding ban otherwise continues to prohibit continuation of [an offending officers] military status upon appointment to a covered position, as OLC concluded in 2016. Thats why, among other things, Mattis and Kelly had to retire from the military before they could join Trumps Cabinet. (Congress usually requires an additional seven-year waiting period for secretaries of defense, which it waived in Mattiss case.) And its why, as the White House clarified later on Wednesday, Jackson will also be separating from the Navy before he is confirmed. Otherwise, his confirmation as secretary of veterans affairs would have terminated his military commission. (In contrast, the national-security adviser can be an active-duty officer because that position does not require Senate confirmation.)
But even as the Trump administration has seamlessly and unhesitatingly complied with the dual-officeholding ban with respect to its Cabinet appointments, there is a case pending in the Supreme Court in which the Justice Department is quietly attempting to denude the ban of most of its forcearguing that, even when a military officer is appointed to a civil office in violation of the statute, theres no legal consequence for the violation. If the Court embraces the governments position in Dalmazzi v. United States (in which I am counsel of record to the Petitioners), it would not only open the door to far more military officers serving simultaneously in senior civilian positions, but it would fly in the face of what the Court has previously described as the traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs.
read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/jackson-dual-officeholding-ban/556781/?utm_source=atltw
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 519 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Few modern presidents surrounded themselves with as many current and former military officers (Original Post)
bigtree
Mar 2018
OP
Under Putin's direction and orders. Our country was invaded by Putin and his intel
Eliot Rosewater
Mar 2018
#2
mountain grammy
(26,573 posts)1. The GOP Congress wll give him a pass.
and so will the press. normalize, normalize, and normalize some more.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)3. The GOP is currently working with and for Putin.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)2. Under Putin's direction and orders. Our country was invaded by Putin and his intel
service and military.
I just wish people understood that.
Do we have a chance to stop this, hell yes, but we better understand what is happening first.