Reply #6: You can't rely on media reports of the court's reasoning. [View All]

[patcox2]

An enlistment contract does state very clearly that an enlistee will serve a set term on active duty, then a term on inactive duty. Any time during that term of inactive duty, he can be recalled to active duty, in case of war or national emergency.

Sorry, but a congressional authorization for the use of force under the War Powers Act is the same thing as a declaration of war. Again, your not liking something doesn't make it so, congress knows when it passes an authorization to use force that this is the same thing as a declaration of war, and the courts have uniformly upheld this; the last formal declaration of war to use that term was in 1941, yet we fought in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, all are considered wars.

So, the reasoning is, the army has the right to let him go off active duty, then immediately, one second later, recall him to active duty. And that is what they are doing, so there is no violation of the enlistment agreement.

This is a political problem, not a legal one. The only solution will be political, not legal. Lay off the poor judge for simply applying established legal principles.