Question - CinC and UCMJ

[WaltBJ]

Is the Commander in Chief subject to the UCMJ when dealing with
military matters? An inquiring mind (me) wants to know.
Walt BJ

[Jim Baker]

No. He's a civilian.

JB

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Is the Commander in Chief subject to the UCMJ when dealing with
> military matters? An inquiring mind (me) wants to know.
> Walt BJ

[WalterM140]

>Is the Commander in Chief subject to the UCMJ when dealing with
>military matters? An inquiring mind (me) wants to know.
>Walt BJ

Who would convene proceedings on him?

The way the framers dealt with misconduct in the executive was by including the
imeachment process.

Of course the framers never thought the Congress would be so lame or partisan
as the one we have right now.

Walt

[Thomas Schoene]

WaltBJ wrote:
> Is the Commander in Chief subject to the UCMJ when dealing with
> military matters? An inquiring mind (me) wants to know.

No, he is not. While the President is the commander-in-chief, he is not
actually a member of the armed forces. The UCMJ lays out explicitly who is
actually subject to its provisions, and the President does not fit:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/blucmjsubject.htm.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[DavidG35]

If the CinC was subject to the UCMJ slick willy would have got it for
adultery.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >Is the Commander in Chief subject to the UCMJ when dealing with
> >military matters? An inquiring mind (me) wants to know.
> >Walt BJ
>
> Who would convene proceedings on him?
>
> The way the framers dealt with misconduct in the executive was by
including the
> imeachment process.
>
> Of course the framers never thought the Congress would be so lame or
partisan
> as the one we have right now.
>
> Walt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Question - CinC and UCMJ
>From: "DavidG35"
>Date: 6/26/2004 5:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <8soDc.449$nc.414@fed1read03>
>
>If the CinC was subject to the UCMJ slick willy would have got it for
>adultery.
>
>"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>> >Is the Commander in Chief subject to the UCMJ when dealing with
>> >military matters? An inquiring mind (me) wants to know.
>> >Walt BJ
>>
>> Who would convene proceedings on him?
>>
>> The way the framers dealt with misconduct in the executive was by
>including the
>> imeachment process.
>>
>> Of course the framers never thought the Congress would be so lame or
>partisan
>> as the one we have right now.
>>
>> Walt


Clinton was not in the military therefore he could not have been tried under
the UCMJ. Milligan vs. United States 1865


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Cub Driver]

>Is the Commander in Chief subject to the UCMJ when dealing with
>military matters? An inquiring mind (me) wants to know.

I don't think that a sitting president is subject to any law for acts
related to his presidential powers. That's what we have impeacment
for. (And it's why, when Nixon resigned, Gerry Ford gave him a blanket
pardon, so he wouldn't face criminal prosecution for Watergate--or
anything else, for that matter.)

Obviously there are limits. Clinton was disbarred by the Arkansas bar
association for lying under oath, even though the impeachment trial on
this matter failed in the Senate. But the bar association wasn't
imposing criminal sanctions, just withdrawing a permission it had
accorded him some years earlier.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org