Search and seizure in the context of a base, aircraft, or vessel, or while performing duties under orders, does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure" under the 4th amendment. Likewise if you agreed to search at your civilian employer as a condition of employment, they could enforce it civilly by firing you. If you're on the Army base as part of your service and they want to search you to see if you're complying with lawful orders, then they legally can, and enforce the requirement criminally under the UCMJ.Liberty wrote:We were subject to search and seizure, for any or no reason. Not complying to direct orders subjected us to imprisonment. We were told where we must live.
The rules that we were to live buy were enforcible by force or imprisonment. No civilian is required by our constitution to risk ones lives by force of criminal law. I personally had volunteered, but many were drafted.
Not complying with direct lawful orders of the Commander in Chief or those to whom he has delegated his command authority (officers, NCO's), is illegal and unconstitutional. The President is made CinC by Article II. It's no wonder it is criminally punishable.
The draft has been found Constitutional and not a violation of the 13th amendment, when enacted by Congress in accordance with its Article I power to "raise Armies, Navies, etc...."
The Constitution grants the power to do all the things that people are saying are unconstitutional usurpations of military members' rights. Most of it is in Article I Section 8, and the rest derives from the power of the Executive to be CinC and appoint officers.
This information is covered in commissioned officer accession programs (Service Academies, ROTC, OCS, etc.), though I suspect most people don't understand it at the time. I know I didn't. I was a commissioned officer in the Navy for a few years and I really didn't like it, so I got out when my time was up. And truthfully it was for many of the reasons cited above, but not because what the military does is unconstitutional, it just annoyed the heck out of me. I guess it's somewhat semantics, but I think it's important to understand that the military functions constitutionally under the same rule of law that all of the United States do.Article I Section 8
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the
land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Offi cers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
...