Hal-
Don't have an answer but I can tell you that Stop-loss has been applied in several instances since the 80's and isn't something new. In all likelihood it is applied as an involuntary contract extension which is authorized by the individual in their initial contract of enlistment. Additionally, the deployment is really just a secondary condition, in that the individual's commitment extension is an obligation to the unit and whether the unit actually deploys is merely coincidental. I would assume that deploying troops is an implied power which could be tied back to the part about the Laws of the Union, going on the assumption that pursuing an authorized military action is the execution of Laws of the Union.

Thanks, Joe.

The Constitution can be interpreted in ways that defy logic and rationality, so I was hoping to reel in someone who knows :-)

""You can't make slaves out of people who've already met the burden" of military service, Michael Sorgen, a lawyer for Doe, said at a courthouse news conference."

Dunno. The lawyer is saying that his client has served his full commitment (eight or so years). Though I'd put money on the lawyer either lying or trying to mislead. His client probably served his two or four years, but you are not discharged at that point, you are separated. The full service commitment is eight years. Some people join the National Guard, or Reserves, but many go into the roles as IRR (Inactive Ready Reserves) until their time is actually completed.

Sounds like John Doe is pissed at being held to his word.

Kalroy

found out more. The guy got out early, with a hefty separation bonus. In exchange for the bonus, he was obliged to serve in the inactive ready reserves so long as he was still receiving payment from the government.

So he signed a contract to serve, has been getting paid for it and now wants to renege on the deal and on his word because it's inconvenient.

Kalroy

Kalroy makes a goodpoint but what about someone who has served eight years including their inactive ready reserves requirement. This has happen to my husband, his unit was put on alert one month before he was scheduled for seperation and two months before the unit was mobilized for trainig in order to get prepared for deployment. My husband thought he had fulfilled his contract. The comments of John Doe's Lawyer seems to fit in this case. Can anyone give me some useful information.

That's stop loss. It's entirely different, and to be honest I don't know anything about it. If your husband has been in longer than eight years his commitment is done as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what they're doing, as far as your husband is concerned.

Is he retiring, transferring to the guards or reserves? Those are all different circumstances and involve additional commitment. But I don't know what the circumstances are, regarding your husband.

Kalroy

See the 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense for your answer. The first militia clause of the Constitution may, indeed, restrict the use by Congress of the militia to the 3 instances you cited, however, the Supreme Court has found this to apply to the National Guard only when it is serving in its state militia capacity. In 1933 Congress, pursuant to its supremacy in the realm of military affairs, created a dual enlistment system which means members of a state's National Guard are simultaneously admitted into the National Guard of the United States, which is a reserve component of the federal Army. When members of the National Guard are mobilized for things like the Iraq war, they lose their seperate state status so the first militia clause does not apply. They are then no different than any other member of the Army. Also see Title 10, United States Code, section 12301.