> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Hmm. Except that this is kind of a defacto impossibility. An "active"
>> officer has duties and requirements which would directly conflict with
>> the ability to hold the office, which, if held, would, in turn, contains
>> duties and responsibilities that would conflict with any
>> actions/duties/etc. that they would need to perform as an officer. Its a
>> bit unclear how any one could even get by with trying to do that, never
>> mind find anyone in the chain of command of the military itself, which
>> would allow it.
>
> Is there a law that says that a military officer cannot run for president
> (while being active in duty)?
>
It's not a law, but an internal Directive from the Pentagon.

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html

Specifically this:

4.4. Holding and Exercising the Functions of a U.S. Government Civil 
Office Attained by Election or Appointment

4.4.1. Paragraph 4.4. applies to a civil office in the U.S. Government that:

4.4.1.1. Is an elective office;

4.4.1.2. Requires an appointment by the President; or

4.4.1.3. Is in a position on the executive schedule under sections 
5312-5317 of Reference (i).

4.4.2. A regular member, or retired regular or Reserve Component member 
on active duty under a call or order to active duty for more than 270 
days, may not hold or exercise the functions of civil office set out in 
subparagraph 4.4.1. unless otherwise authorized in paragraph 4.4. or by 
law.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2013 1:14 PM, Warp wrote:
> In the United States, the Secretary of Defense, who is the chief commander
> of the entire armed forces of the country (second to only the president)
> cannot himself (or herself) be a military officer in active duty. As
> wikipedia states it, "ensuring civilian control of the military, an
> individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven
> years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a
> regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force."
>
> The rationale for this in political theory is that this is a necessity
> in a working democracy because it lessens the power of the military in
> civilian government (thus ultimately lessening the chances of a military
> coup.)
>
> However, reading the requisites for the office of the President itself,
> there is no mention of active military duty at all. As I see it, there's
> no reason why a military officer in active duty could not be elected the
> President of the United States.
>
> This feels to me as being in drastic conflict with the principle of
> civilian control of the military. As the Secretary of Defense answers
> to the President, it would seem like a conflict of interest if the
> President were a military officer (while the Secretary is not allowed
> to be one, for the above-mentioned reasons.)

Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an 
active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.

Federal law prohibits military members (whether enlisted or 
commissioned) from engaging in partisan political activity during duty 
hours, or for using their official status towards any partisan political 
goal.  It would be completely impossible for any general to mount an 
effective campaign for the presidency during his spare time.

And if the sitting president is himself running for re-election, he can 
issue any number of orders which make the general's election impossible 
(such as assigning the general to a location outside of the US).

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an 
> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.

That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)

> And if the sitting president is himself running for re-election, he can 
> issue any number of orders which make the general's election impossible 
> (such as assigning the general to a location outside of the US).

That sounds like abuse of authority for personal gain, which in itself
sounds illegal (or at least it should be.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2013 10:15 AM, Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
>> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
>
> That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
> reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
> as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)

If the theory does not agree with the practice, the theory is wrong.

>> And if the sitting president is himself running for re-election, he can
>> issue any number of orders which make the general's election impossible
>> (such as assigning the general to a location outside of the US).
>
> That sounds like abuse of authority for personal gain, which in itself
> sounds illegal (or at least it should be.)

Or the president could observe that instead of performing his assigned 
duties, the general is doing campaign work (because, as I pointed out, 
doing both effectively is impossible).  Dereliction of duty is a 
court-martial offense.  So the president has him prosecuted under 
military law.  Perfectly legal, and not an abuse of authority, because a 
president who is not up for re-election could do the exact same thing.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
>> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
>
> That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
> reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
> as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)

Campaigning for a federal office is a full time job for at leasth 18 months.

Just like most people in the private sector, a serviceman on active duty 
would be FIRED for doing political work instead of his/her job.

(Unless I'm mistaken, I linked to the actual DoD policy on the matter).
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2013 10:25 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Just like most people in the private sector, a serviceman on active duty
> would be FIRED for doing political work instead of his/her job.
>


In the UK it was a cheaper way out of the forces than buying yourself 
out. If an officer (it did not apply to the men, of course) put himself 
forward as a candidate at a parliamentary election he was automatically 
disbarred from being an officer in HM armed forces. A bit like the 
Chiltern Hundreds for our MPs.
Well, so I remember from memories from my childhood but I can't find any 
references.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> >> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
> >> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
> >
> > That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
> > reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
> > as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)

> Campaigning for a federal office is a full time job for at leasth 18 months.

How does that change what I said?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
>>>> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
>>>
>>> That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
>>> reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
>>> as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)
>
>> Campaigning for a federal office is a full time job for at leasth 18 months.
>
> How does that change what I said?
>

It changes that at the time of his election, he would no longer be a 
military officer, since he would have been dishonorably discharged a 
year prior.

A military officer who wants to pursue a political carreer is much 
better to retire than get fired, don't you think?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> >>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> >>>> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
> >>>> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
> >>>
> >>> That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
> >>> reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
> >>> as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)
> >
> >> Campaigning for a federal office is a full time job for at leasth 18 months.
> >
> > How does that change what I said?
> >

> It changes that at the time of his election, he would no longer be a 
> military officer, since he would have been dishonorably discharged a 
> year prior.

You seem to be saying that it's impossible for a person to be elected
president unless they engage in a full-time campaigning job.

Why? Is there a law that I don't know of that precludes anybody who does
not campaign to be elected president?

As I said: It may be impossible *in practice* for someone to get elected
without running a campaign (for the simple reason that people don't get
to know the candidate), but in theory there's no reason why a military
officer couldn't be elected president out-of-the-blue. Unless a weird law
explicitly says that it's prohibited.

In how many ways do I have to phrase this before it's understood?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>>> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>>>>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>>>>>> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
>>>>>> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
>>>>>
>>>>> That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
>>>>> reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
>>>>> as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)
>>>
>>>> Campaigning for a federal office is a full time job for at leasth 18 months.
>>>
>>> How does that change what I said?
>>>
>
>> It changes that at the time of his election, he would no longer be a
>> military officer, since he would have been dishonorably discharged a
>> year prior.
>
> You seem to be saying that it's impossible for a person to be elected
> president unless they engage in a full-time campaigning job.
>
> Why? Is there a law that I don't know of that precludes anybody who does
> not campaign to be elected president?
>
> As I said: It may be impossible *in practice* for someone to get elected
> without running a campaign (for the simple reason that people don't get
> to know the candidate), but in theory there's no reason why a military
> officer couldn't be elected president out-of-the-blue. Unless a weird law
> explicitly says that it's prohibited.
>
> In how many ways do I have to phrase this before it's understood?
>

It was understood.  In fact, I think I've said twice already that there 
are no laws preventing it.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message