http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/12/1370336/-Lt-Col-Joni-Ernst-should-be-court-martialed-for-signing-the-seditious-letter-to-Iran?detail=email
It is a privilege to serve in the US military. With that privilege comes obligations. Following military law is one of them. When Lt. Col. Joni Ernst signed the seditious letter to Iran, she broke a serious law.
Lt. Col. Joni Ernst, the junior senator from Iowa, serves as a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard. As such, she is bound by the Iowa State Code of Military Justice. Her signing of the seditious letter to Iran is a clear and direct violation of Chapter 29B.85 of the Iowa State Code of Military Justice.
29B.85 CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS.
Any person subject to this code who uses contemptuous words against the president, the governor, or the governor of any other state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which that person may be serving, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
This is very serious infraction. We are a nation governed by civilians. Our Commander-in-Chief is a civilian. The government officials that hold ultimate authority over our military are civilians. This is true at the federal level and the state level. This has always been the case since George Washington was president. He resigned his military commission to accept the position of president.
We have never in our history had a military ruler. Military obedience to civilian authority is critical and essential if we are to maintain the democracy we inherited. That is why "contempt towards officials" is such a serious matter. Lincoln enforced that discipline during the Civil War. Even with the imposition of martial law, Lincoln remained a civilian commander. Truman enforced the same discipline after WWII when he relieved Gen. MacArthur of his command. Obama enforced the same discipline recently when Gen. McChrystal was relieved of his command. There is nothing anachronistic about this fundamental principle.
In the federal armed services, this is handled under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
In the Open Letter to Iran, which Lt. Col. Joni Ernst freely signed, it says:
we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.
The fact of the matter is the president, under Article 2, section 2, has always been recognized as uniquely empowered to speak on behalf of the nation. After all, the president is the Chief Executive. This principle has been in place for over 200 years. Secretary of State Jefferson -- as instructed by President Washington -- made this point in writing to Edmond Genet in 1793, explaining that no one but the president could speak for this country.
He being the only channel of communication between this country and foreign nations, it is from him alone that foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation; and whatever he communicates as such, they have a right, and are bound to consider as the expression of the nation
The letter goes from bad to worse, stating “future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.” This contempt for the president's role ignores a bedrock principle of Executive authority established when Washington [1793] was president. Adams, no friend of Washington, signed this in to law [1799]. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reaffirmed this [1816] and the Supreme Court agreed [1938]. It’s no surprise that Cheney relied on this point to defend Reagan’s negotiations with Iran [1987] and that Biden, no friend of Cheney, agreed [2015].
please read the rest of the article it points out the exact infractions Ernst committed what we need to see now is how this is handled Pres. being the Commander n Chief does he forward the motion of courts martial? she was sighted before and evidently nothing happened as she is at it again, i can't emphasize how important to read the rest it's a double edged sword cutting in both directions for and against.
personally i think she violated her state code of military justice and should be charged to excuse. when i went to indoctrination before induction there was a mural on the wall that said "ignorance is no excuse for the law" so did she flagrantly violate the law with knowledge of for thought or it didn't occur because it's alright she's republican???
