Quote:Subjecting the cadet to religious proselytizing is illegal under the first amendment.
This is completely wrong. The First Amendment defends the right to proselytize. How can you have free speech if you can't speak about your belief in God or express your opinion that people should follow God?
Free Speech doesn't give you the right to not be "subjected" to speech. This is completely backwards.
This is the crux of the story... and I don't buy it.
This guy has no case based on the First Amendment. It is possible he could argue misuse of authority, but the story doesn't seem to be saying that. Of course he has the free speech right to whine about the proselytism...
... but if he broke his contract because of other people's exercise of their First Amendment rights, he should pay up.
They breached and continue to breach the fundamental law of the US concerning freedom of religion which entails freedom from religion
Even if there were some fundamental law such as that, that does not void this particular contract. If Wells Fargo (for example) screws up my checking account that doesn't mean I don't have to pay my mortgage.
That seems as biased as if he had something to gain by making a claim like that.
It seems to me that if you want to get out of a contract because in your view it is unfair, the smart thing to do (and the right thing to do) is to go to court where an hearing will listen to the merits of your case.
Leaving a $200,000 contract based on nothing but your unsupported (and radical) opinion is stupid.
You don't get to just up and leave a contract because you don't like something.
If Wells Fargo (for example) screws up my checking account that doesn't mean I don't have to pay my mortgage.
This is a lame example. The checking account is separate from the mortgage. Moreover, the bank fully performed its part of the mortgage contract when it loaned you the price of your home.
The army materially breached the contract because that contract was much more than providing room, board and tuition.
Would it be any different if those same people had substantive de facto policies in place that daily illustrated just how inferior Blacks were(qm)
Ok, let's explore that. What do you think the contract is if it is not room, board, tuition and a job in exchange for a five year service commitment?
“The tipping point of my decision to resign was the realization that countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution,” Page wrote. “These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times require sectarian religious participation.”
I thought your Wells Fargo parallel perfect but I think it makes my point. You still have to pay your mortgage.
If a GI was facing religious pressure, he has several options both within and outside the military but one of them is not to go AWOL. He can't unilaterally declare his enlistment void.
I disagree that the educational contract is tied to Constitutional rights any more than any other government contract. You can't get out of paying your taxes if the government violates your rights.
Quote:I thought your Wells Fargo parallel perfect but I think it makes my point. You still have to pay your mortgage.
I don't think that you are following this to its logical end, E. Certainly, one would have to take their mortgage with them, but it likely would be considerably reduced by the judgment awarded against Wells Fargo, if indeed they managed to stay in business.
Quote:If a GI was facing religious pressure, he has several options both within and outside the military but one of them is not to go AWOL. He can't unilaterally declare his enlistment void.
This has zero "pertinality" to this issue.
It would be stupid for the academy to try to make someone graduate. Thus, the cadet may resign and, unless he was somehow forced out, have to pay the recoupment. It is clear in this case that he was constructively forced out.