Brynn Seidenstricker's List: BrynnSeidenstricker 1st amendment

• Petitioner then sued respondent Secretary of Defense and others, claiming that the application of AFR 35-10 to prevent him from wearing his yarmulke infringed upon his First Amendment freedom to exercise his religious beliefs.
• to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps.

  • once again why does the military get to name itself a whole different "community" than the civilians?
• Uniforms encourage a sense of hierarchical unity by tending to eliminate outward individual distinctions except for those of rank.

  • The military should not be allowed to tell a religious person they aren't allowed to practice the way they want. Religion plays a large part in many lives.

1 more annotation...

• Appellee read the order, said that he understood it, but declared that he would not obey it because of his medical ethics. Appellee persisted in his refusal to obey the order, and later reviews of the program established that the training was still not being carried out.

  • Why is the military training medical personnel differently than the way med school does?
• a specialized society separate from civilian society. We have also recognized that the military has, again by necessity, developed laws and traditions of its own during its long history.

  • I wonder how our founding fathers would feel about this.
• Just as military society has been a society apart from civilian society, so "[m]ilitary law . . . is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal judicial establishment.

  • I don't agree with this opinion. I personally believe the army has too much power and should be checked just like the 3 branches of goverment

1 more annotation...

• "[n]o person may restrict any member of an armed force in communicating with a member of Congress, unless the communication is unlawful or violates a regulation necessary to the security of the United States."

  • Finally a case that sides with the the individual service man.
• In 1974, Frank L. Huff, Robert A. Falatine, and Robert E. Gabrielson were serving in the Marine Corps at the United States Marine Corps Air Station in Iwakuni, Japan. On separate occasions, each of them sought the base commander's permission to circulate a petition addressed to a Member of Congress. The petitions dealt with the use of military forces in labor disputes within the United States, amnesty for men who resisted the draft or deserted the Armed Forces during the Vietnam war, and United States support for the Government of South Korea. The first two requests proposed circulation within the base; the last proposed circulation both within and without the base. The commander denied the first two requests, but he allowed the petition about South Korea to circulate within the base.

  • this almost makes the officer look bad if they tell the service man he can't pass the petition on without his permission or he tells him he can't. It's almost like they know something isn't right but they want to maintain the power they hold.

• Air Force regulations require members of that service to obtain approval from their commanders before circulating petitions on Air Force bases

  • This goes along with the Navy vs. Huff case
• The Air Force regulations recognize that Air Force personnel have the right to petition Members of Congress and other public officials. Air Force Reg. 30-1 (9) (1971). The regulations, however, prohibit "any person within an Air Force facility" and "any [Air Force] member . . . in uniform or . . . in a foreign country" from soliciting signatures on a petition without first obtaining authorization from the appropriate commander. Ibid

  • This doesn't make sense. If they're petitioning it's obviously for a reason that has to do wit the Air Force but the officers get to read over it first?
• The commander can deny permission only if he determines that distribution of the material would result in "a clear danger to the loyalty, discipline, or morale of members of the Armed Forces, or material interference with the accomplishment of a military mission. . . ."

  • petitions aren't going to cause that much trouble. it would probably put more people in danger if the commander has to look over it first.

1 more annotation...

• However, they must be off-duty, attend only as spectators and not be in uniform.
• Military personnel are allowed to write to their elected representatives without sending the communication through official channels.

  • One of very few times where the courts have sided with the individual military personal and not the commander or those in charge.