View Single Post
Old October 12, 2008, 12:20 PM   #3
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Bart, as you are aware, Art. I, Sect. 8 gives to the Congress the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" and "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[.]"

This gives to the Congress the power and authority to determine in whole the nature of military service, apart from what ordinary citizens may be governed. This power is plenary in nature and the Court has long recognized this.

Because the V.A. is in whole, a service provided to veterans by an act of Congress, it can and does create a "suspect" class of citizens. Since any action arising out of use (or non-use or misuse) of V.A. services is inextricably linked to the recipients military service, it is within the bounds of the plenary power of Congress to set any/all modes of recovery, if any.

Like it or not, service in the military falls under a completely different set of laws than that by which govern the ordinary citizen. Likewise, any service connected disability also falls under a separate set of codes. The Congress has decided that any liability connected to such service, at either the time of actual service or complications in (later) civilian life, arising out of said service, to be a specific and governable power.

The ABA, in pushing these claims, is in trying to narrow the scope of the plenary power of Congress via the Courts. In effect, the ABA is attempting to legislate from the bench. A wholly improper method of amending the Constitution.

Of late, it has been actions such as these, that has soured some (many?) attorneys from their association(s) with the ABA. <-- which is an indirect answer to your other thread.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03654 seconds with 8 queries