Department of the NavyAuditor General Chief of Information DoN Chief Information Officer Judge Advocate General of the Navy Chief of Naval Operations Naval Inspector General Director Pro
Trang 1The federal judiciary has described the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clauses as an interest guaranteeing a number of individual freedoms, including the right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-dignity, and self-determination (Gray v Romeo, 697
F Supp 580 [1988]) The word liberty, the Supreme Court stated, means something more than freedom from physical restraint.“It means freedom to go where one may choose, and to act in such manner as his judgment may dictate for the promotion of his happiness [while pursuing] such callings and avocations as may be most suitable to develop his capacities, and give to them their highest enjoyment” (MUNN V ILLINOIS, 94 U.S 113, 4 Otto 113, 24
L Ed 77[1876] [Field, J., dissenting])
The Supreme Court has said the full breadth
of constitutional liberty is best explained as a rational continuum safeguarding every facet of human freedom from arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints (Poe v Ullman, 367 U.S
497, 81 S Ct 1752, 6 L Ed 2d 989[1961]) The government may not intrude upon this liberty unless it can demonstrate a persuasive counter-vailing interest However, the more the U.S
legal system cherishes a particular freedom, the less likely a court is to enforce a law that infringes upon it
In this regard the Supreme Court has identified certain fundamental rights that qual-ify for heightened judicial protection against laws threatening to restrict them This list of fundamental rights includes most of the specific freedoms enumerated in the BILL OF RIGHTS, as well as theFREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION; the right to vote and participate in the electoral process; the right to marry, procreate, and rear children; and the right to privacy The right to privacy, which
is not expressly enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, guarantees the freedom of adults
to use BIRTH CONTROL (GRISWOLD V CONNECTICUT,
381 U.S 479, 85 S Ct 1678, 14 L Ed 2d 510 [1965]) and the right of women to terminate their pregnancy before the fetus becomes viable (ROE V WADE, 410 U.S 113, 93 S Ct 705, 35
L Ed 2d 147[1973])
During the 1990s the right to privacy was enlarged to recognize the right of certain terminally ill or mentally incompetent persons
to refuse medical treatment In Cruzan v
Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S 261,
110 S Ct 2841, 111 L Ed 2d 224 (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is in a
persistent vegetative state, marked by the absence of any significant cognitive abilities, may seek to terminate life-sustaining measures, including artificial nutrition and hydration equipment, through a parent, spouse, or other appropriate guardian who demonstrates that the incompetent person previously expressed a clear desire to discontinue medical treatment under such circumstances
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later cited Cruzan in support of its decision establishing the right of competent but termi-nally ill patients to hasten their death by refusing medical treatment when the final stages
of life are wrought with pain and indignity (Compassion in Dying v Washington, 79 F.3d
790 [9th Cir 1996]) However, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that physicians possess no due process right to assist terminally ill patients in accelerating their death
by prescribing a lethal dose of narcotics (Quill v Vacco, 80 F.3d 716 [2d Cir 1996]) In a notorious case involving Dr JACK KEVORKIAN, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that patients have no due process right to physician-assisted
SUICIDE(People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 527
N W 2d 714[1994])
In the Cruzan decision, the manner in which the Supreme Court recognized a qualified right to die reflects the Enlightenment tradition
of secular natural law Where Locke inferred the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property from observing human behavior, the Supreme Court said in Cruzan that “a Constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions.”
In Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S 11, 25
S Ct 358, 49 L Ed 643 (1905), the Supreme Court protected the constitutional right of a person to decline a smallpox vaccination that was required by state law In Washington v Harper, 494 U.S 210, 110 S Ct 1028, 108 L Ed 2d 178 (1990), the court ruled that the liberty interest guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses prohibits the government from compelling prisoners to take antipsychotic drugs These cases, as well as others, the Supreme Court reasoned in Cruzan, establish that all U.S citizens have a general right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, which includes the specific right of certain mentally incompetent and terminally ill persons to hasten their death
228 NATURAL LAW
Trang 2Another example of Supreme Court justices
debating over natural law principles occurred in
Alden v Maine, 527 U.S 706, 119 S Ct 2240,
144 L Ed 2d 2240 (1999) In that case, the
court’s majority disagreed with Justice DAVID
SOUTER’s opinion regarding whether the concept
of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY was originally based on
natural law principles
Historical Natural Law
Another school of natural law is known as
historical natural law According to this school,
law must be made to conform with the
well-established, but unwritten, customs, traditions,
and experiences that have evolved over the
course of history Historical natural law has
played an integral role in the development of
the Anglo-American system of justice When
King James I attempted to assert the absolute
power of the British monarchy during the
seventeenth century, for example, English jurist
SIR EDWARD COKE argued that the sovereignty of
the crown was limited by the ancient liberties of
the English people, immemorial custom, and
the rights prescribed byMAGNA CARTAin 1215
Magna Carta also laid the cornerstone for
many U.S constitutional liberties The Supreme
Court has traced the origins of grand juries,
petit juries, and the writ of HABEAS CORPUS to
Magna Carta The EIGHTH AMENDMENT
propor-tionality analysis, which requires that criminal
sanctions bear some reasonable relationship to
the seriousness of the offense, was
foresha-dowed by the Magna Carta prohibition of
excessive fines (Solem v Helm, 463 U.S 277,
103 S Ct 3001, 77 L Ed 2d 637[1983]) The
concept of due process was inherited from the
requirement in Magna Carta that all LEGAL
PROCEEDINGScomport with the“law of the land”
(IN RE WINSHIP, 397 U.S 358, 90 S Ct 1068, 25
L Ed 2d 368[1970])
DUE PROCESS OF LAW, the Supreme Court has
observed, contains both procedural and
histori-cal aspects that tend to converge in criminal
cases (ROCHIN V.CALIFORNIA, 342 U.S 165, 72 S
Ct 205, 96 L Ed 183[1952]) Procedurally, due
process guarantees criminal defendants a fair
trial Historically, due process guarantees that
no DEFENDANT may be convicted of a crime
unless the government can prove his or her
guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT Although the
REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARDcan be found
now-here in the express language of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court has said that the demand for
a higher degree of persuasion in criminal cases has been repeatedly expressed since “ancient times” through the common-law tradition and
is now “embodied in the Constitution” (In re Winship)
The legacy of the trial ofJOHN PETER ZENGER,
17 Howell’s State Trials 675, further illustrates the symbiotic relationship between history and the law In 1735, Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, was charged with libeling the governor of New York At trial Zenger admitted that he had published the allegedly harmful article but argued that the article was not LIBELOUSbecause it contained no inaccurate statements However, in the American colonies, truth was not considered a defense to LIBEL
actions Nonetheless, despite Zenger’s admis-sion of harmful publication and lack of a cognizable legal defense, the jury acquitted him
The Zenger acquittal spawned two ideas that have become entrenched in U.S jurisprudence
First, the acquittal gave birth to the idea that truth is indeed a defense to accusations of libel
This defense received constitutional protection under the First Amendment inNEW YORK TIMES V
SULLIVAN, 376 U.S 254, 84 S Ct 710, 11 L Ed
2d 686 (1964) Looking back, the Supreme Court came to describe the Zenger trial as“the earliest and most famous American experience with freedom of the press” (McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S 334, 115 S Ct
1511, 131 L Ed 2d 426,[1995])
The Zenger trial is also the progenitor of
JURY NULLIFICATION, which is the power of a jury,
as the conscience of the community, to acquit defendants against whom there is overwhelming evidence of guilt in order to challenge a specific law, prevent oppression, or otherwise achieve justice For example, the Zenger jurors issued an acquittal despite what amounted to a confession
by the defendant inOPEN COURT Some observers have compared the Zenger trial to the trial of
O.J.SIMPSON, in which the former football star was acquitted of a double HOMICIDE notwith-standingDNA EVIDENCElinking him to the crimes
According to these observers, the defense attorney for Simpson, JOHNNIE COCHRAN, im-plored the jurors to ignore the evidence against his client and render a verdict that would send a message denouncingPOLICE CORRUPTION,PERJURY, and racism
All three schools of natural law have influenced the development of U.S law from
NATURAL LAW 229
Trang 3colonial to modern times In many ways the creation and RATIFICATION of the Constitution replaced Scripture and religion as the ultimate source of law in the United States The federal Constitution makes the people the fundamental foundation of authority in the U.S system of government Many of the Framers characterized the Constitution as containing “sacred and inviolate” truths In the same vein,THOMAS PAINE
described the Constitution as a“political Bible.”
In 1728 many Americans understood that the COMMON LAW encompassed the Law of Nature, the Law of Reason, and the Revealed Law of God, which are equally binding at all times, in all places, and to all persons The law of history could have been added to this list
Between 1776 and 1784, 11 of the original 13 states made some allowance for the adoption of the English common law One federal court said the Constitution“did not create any new rights
to life, liberty or due process These rights had existed for Englishmen since Magna Carta The Declaration of Independence merely de-clared and established these rights for the American colonies” (Screven County v Brier Creek Hunting & Fishing Club, 202 F 2d 369 [5th Cir 1953]) Thus, natural law in the United States may be best understood as the integration
of history, secular reason, and divine inspiration
FURTHER READINGS Berman, Harold J 1983 Law and Revolution: The Formation
of the Western Legal Tradition Cambridge: Harvard Univ Press.
George, Robert P., ed 2003 Natural Law Burlington, VT:
Ashgate/Dartmouth.
Harris, Philip Anthony 2002 The Distinction between Law and Ethics in Natural Law Theory Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Horwitz, Morton J 1992 The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860 New York: Oxford Univ Press.
Levy, Leonard W 1963 Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side Chicago: Elephant Paperback.
Locke, John 1980 (First printed in 1690.) Second Treatise on Government Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing.
Norberto, Bobbio 1993 Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press.
Pierce, Christine 2001 Immovable Laws, Irresistible Rights:
Natural Law, Moral Rights, and Feminist Ethics.
Lawrence: Univ Press of Kansas.
Pojman, Louis P 1995 Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Weinreb, Lloyd 1987 Natural Law and Justice Cambridge:
Harvard Univ Press.
Wood, Gordon S 1972 The Creation of the American Republic: 1776–1787 New York: Norton.
Zuckert, Michael P 1994 Natural Rights and the New Republicanism Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ Press.
CROSS REFERENCES Abortion; Constitution of the United States; Death and Dying; Hobbes, Thomas; Jurisprudence; Libel and Slander;
“Second Treatise on Government” (Appendix, Primary Document).
NATURAL LAW PARTY
Citizens of Fairfield, Iowa, formed the Natural Law Party in April 1992 In a few short months, the party succeeded in placing its presidential ticket on the ballot in 28 states for the 1992 election By 1996 the party was offering candidates for elective office in all 50 states Despite its fast growth in the 1990s, the party declined just as rapidly in the 2000s By 2004, the national office of the Natural Law Party had closed its doors
Fairfield, Iowa, is the site of Maharishi International University, a school that teaches students to use transcendental meditation (TM)
to achieve good health and a heightened aware-ness and understanding of the self and the world The school, founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, provided the Natural Law Party with the inspiration and resources to enter the field of electoral politics
The Natural Law Party fashioned an un-usual and ambitious political platform The party endorsed the practice of TM as a humane and cost-effective way to rehabilitate convicted and accused criminals The party offered a proactive alternative to the health care system, a system that party candidates called “disease care.” Instead of pouring millions of dollars each year into the creation of drugs to manage disease, the Natural Law Party promoted health education and stress management, along with
TM, as ways to avoid disease
Dr John S Hagelin became the standard-bearer for the Natural Law Party Hagelin, a renowned physicist, was the party’s nominee for president in 1992, 1996, and 2000 Although he was a professor at the Maharishi International University and a staunch proponent of the benefits of TM, Hagelin worked to expand the party’s scope beyond the TM message The party emphasized the importance of social equality for all persons, and party candidates talked of world peace as a reachable goal The party platform also stressed environmental protection For example, the party endorsed alternative methods of energy production, such
230 NATURAL LAW PARTY
Trang 4as a redirection of resources away from fossil
fuels and toward renewable energy
Although party membership grew rapidly,
reportedly reaching more than 100,000
mem-bers at one time, the party’s goals in the political
process proved elusive In 1996 Hagelin was one
of only five presidential candidates who was on
enough ballots to conceivably win the election
in the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and from a party
that had held primaries Hagelin, along with
REFORM PARTY candidate H Ross Perot and
LIBERTARIAN PARTY candidate Harry Browne,
sought to participate in the nationally televised
presidential debates based on these
accomplish-ments However, the Commission on
Presiden-tial Debates, a private nonprofit organization
formed by the Democratic and Republican
National Committees, concluded that Hagelin,
Perot, and Browne had no realistic chance of
winning the election and excluded all three
from the debates Hagelin won 113,667 votes
in the national election, or about 0.12 percent of
the vote
In 1999 Hagelin announced his candidacy
for both the Natural Law Party and the Reform
Party presidential nominations When the
Reform Party split over the candidacy ofPATRICK
BUCHANAN, supporters of Hagelin took the name
Independence Party In the 2000 elections,
Natural Law-Independence Party coalition
can-didates received more than 1.4 million votes In
March 2003 the Natural Law Party condemned
the invasion of Iraq by the United States In
April 2003 the Party announced that
Represen-tative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) had
reintro-duced his legislation to establish a U.S
Department of Peace, legislation that Hagelin
had helped to draft
Hagelin did not run as the Natural Law
Party’s candidate in the 2004 election Instead,
the party supported Kucinich’s candidacy
Hagelin announced that he would become
president of the U.S Peace Government, which
the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi established in
2000 The Natural Law Party’s national
head-quarters closed in 2004, and the state and
local affiliates of the party had disbanded by
2006
FURTHER READINGS
Carlson, Peter 2000 “A Two-System Party Results in Dual
(and Dueling) Nominees.” Washington Post (August 14).
Natural Law Party Available online at
http://www.natural-law.org/ (accessed May 19, 2009).
Roth, Robert 1999 A Reason to Vote: Breaking the Two-Party Stranglehold New York: St Martin’s Griffin.
The U.S Peace Government Available online at http://www.
uspeacegovernment.org/ (accessed May 19, 2009).
CROSS REFERENCES Libertarian Party; Third Party.
NATURALIZATION
The process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship In order
to qualify for naturalization, an applicant must meet a number of statutory requirements, includ-ing those related to residency, literacy, and education, as well as an exhibition of “good moral character” and a demonstration of an attachment
to constitutional principles upon which the United States is based
CROSS REFERENCES Aliens; Citizens.
NAVIGABLE RIVERS
SeeINTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS
NAVIGABLE WATERS
Navigable waters are those that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods
Under U.S law, bodies of water are distinguished according to their use The dis-tinction is particularly important in the case of navigable waters, which are used for business
or transportation Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities The federal gov-ernment can determine how the waters are used, by whom, and under what conditions It
John S Hagelin (far right) was the National Law Party’s presidential candidate
in 1992, 1996, and 2000.
AP IMAGES NAVIGABLE WATERS 231
Trang 5also has the power to alter the waters, such as by dredging or building dams Generally a state or private property owner who is inconvenienced
by such work has no remedy against the federal government unless state or private property itself is taken; if such property is taken, the laws
ofEMINENT DOMAINwould apply, which may lead
to compensation for the landowner
The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S Constitution
Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S
SUPREME COURT has held that the COMMERCE CLAUSE (Article 1, Section 8) gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce This view originated in
1824 in the landmark case Gibbons v Ogden, 22 U.S (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L Ed 23 In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of vessels It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence This decision led
to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters and in countless other areas of interstate commerce
In practical terms federal regulation of navigable waters takes many forms One area
of this regulation covers matters of transporta-tion and commerce: for example, rules govern-ing the licensgovern-ing of ships and the dumpgovern-ing of waste A second area applies to the alteration of the navigable waters, which is strictly controlled
by federal law The Rivers and Harbors APPROPRI-ATIONAct of 1899 forbids building any unautho-rized obstruction to U.S navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers A third area of regulation involves WORKERS’ COMPENSATION claims The concept of navigable waters is important in claims made under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C.A
§§ 901–950) The act provides that employers are liable for injuries to sailors that occur upon navigable waters of the United States
The vast body of federal regulation concern-ing navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult task of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject
to the law or regulation in question) Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be
navigable Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S Supreme Court
in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters Established in Kaiser Aetna v United States, 444 U.S 164, 100
S Ct 383, 62 L Ed 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test The Supreme Court test affects the reach of the federalCLEAN WATER ACT, 86 Stat 877, which sets standards and review processes for industries that discharge material into navigable waters
In addition, the test can influence decisions on whether a unit of government can assertIMMUNITY
from damages suits In Northern Insurance Company of New York v Chatham County, Georgia, 547 U.S 189, 126 S Ct 1689, 164
L Ed 2d 367 (2006), the Supreme Court rejected
a county government’s claim that it should
be granted immunity because in cases involving ships, which is known as admiralty law, the county’s “exercise of core state functions with regard to navigable waters” barred civil lawsuits The Court cited precedents in admiralty law that demonstrated it had not created a special category governing SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY To the contrary, the Court used prior cases to conclude that sovereign immunity did not bar an admiralty suit against a city Therefore, the county could not avoid litigation on the damages claim
FURTHER READINGS
“Annotated Federal Statutes of Limitation: Title 33— Navigation and Navigable Waters ” 1995 Southwestern University Law Review 24 (winter).
Findley, Roger 2004 Environmental Law in Nutshell 6th ed.
St Paul, MN: West Group.
Getches, David 1997.Water Law in a Nutshell 3d ed St Paul, MN: West Group.
Shiva, Vandana 2002 Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press CROSS REFERENCES
Admiralty and Maritime Law; Pilot; Riparian Rights; Water Rights.
NAVY DEPARTMENT
The U.S Navy was founded on October 13, 1775, when Congress enacted the first legislation creating
232 NAVY DEPARTMENT
Trang 6the Continental Navy of the American Revolution.
The Department of the Navy and the Office of
Secretary of the Navy were established by the act of
April 30, 1798 (10 U.S.C.A §§ 5011, 5031) For
nine years before that date, by act of August 7,
1789 (1 Stat 49), the conduct of naval affairs was
under the secretary of war The National Security
Act Amendments of 1949 provided that the
Department of the Navy be a military department
within the Department of Defense (63 Stat 578)
The navy is one of three primary
compo-nents of the U.S military Incorporating the
Marine Corps, it serves along with the army and
the air force as part of the nation’s defense
The navy’s mission is to protect the United States
as directed by the president or the secretary of
defense by the effective prosecution of war at
sea With its Marine Corps component, the
navy’s objectives are to seize or defend advanced
naval bases; support, as required, the forces of
all military departments of the United States;
and maintain freedom of the seas The
Depart-ment of the Navy includes the U.S Coast Guard
when it is operating as a service in the navy
Office of the Secretary of the Navy
The secretary of the navy is the head of the
Department of the Navy Appointed by the
president of the United States, the secretary
serves under the direction, authority, and
control of the cabinet-level secretary of defense
(10 U.S.C.A § 5031) The secretary is
responsi-ble for the policies and control of the navy,
including its organization, administration,
func-tioning, and efficiency Next in succession for
the position is the under secretary of the navy,
who functions as deputy and principal assistant
to the secretary and has full authority in the
general management of the department
Civilian Executive Assistants The civilian
executive assistants are the principal advisers
and assistants to the secretary of the navy They
include the under secretary of the navy, the
assistant secretaries of the navy, and the general
counsel of the navy With department-wide
responsibilities for administration, the civilian
executive assistants carry out their duties in
harmony with the statutory positions of the
chief of naval operations, who is the principal
military adviser and executive to the secretary
regarding naval matters, and the commandant
of the Marine Corps, who is the principal
military adviser and executive regarding Marine
Corps matters Each is authorized and directed
to act for the secretary within his or her assigned area of responsibility
Staff Assistants The staff assistants to the secretary of the navy are the naval inspector general, the comptroller of the navy, the auditor general of the navy, and the chief of informa-tion The secretary or the law has established the following positions and boards for administra-tive purposes
Judge Advocate General TheJUDGE ADVOCATE
general is the senior officer and head of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps and the Office
of the Judge Advocate General The officer’s primary responsibilities are to administer mili-tary justice throughout the Department of the Navy, perform functions required or authorized
by the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, and provide technical supervision for the Naval Justice School at Newport, Rhode Island In cooperation with the general counsel to the navy, the judge advocate general also has broad responsibility for providing legal advice and related services to the secretary of the navy on military justice, ethics, administrative law,
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, operational and INTERNA-TIONAL LAW and treaty interpretation, and
LITIGATION involving these issues Officers of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps and judge advocates of the Marine Corps provide a variety
of legal services to both individual service members and naval commands, ranging from personal representation for individual service members for courts-martial to legal services for naval commands on matters such as investiga-tions and claims
Naval Criminal Investigative Service The director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service commands a worldwide organization with representation in more than 160 geo-graphic locations to provide criminal investiga-tion, counterintelligence, law enforcement, information, and personnel security support to the U.S Navy and Marine Corps, both ashore and afloat
Office of Naval Research Established by act
of Congress on August 1, 1946 (10 U.S.C.A
§§ 5150–5153), the Office of Naval Research is the integrated headquarters of the navy for science and technology investment It manages funding for basic research, exploratory develop-ment, advanced technology development, manufacturing technologies, and small business support
NAVY DEPARTMENT 233
Trang 7Department of the Navy
Auditor General
Chief of Information
DoN Chief Information Officer
Judge Advocate General of the Navy
Chief of Naval Operations
Naval Inspector General
Director Program Appraisal
Assistant Secretary of
the Navy (Research,
Development, and
Acquisition)
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management)
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment)
General Counsel of the Department
of the Navy
Director Small &
Disadvantaged Business Utillization
Assistant for Administration
Chief of Legislative Affairs
Secretary
of the Navy
Under Secretary
of the Navy
Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program [NooN]
Chief of Naval
Research
Master Chief Petty Officer [MCPON]
Director Test &
Evaluation Tech.
Reqs [No91]
Surgeon General
of the Navy [No93]
Chief of Navy Reserve [No95]
Vice Chief
of Naval Operations
Director, Navy Staff [DNS]
Chief of Chaplains [No97]
Director for Material Readiness
& Logistics [N4]
DCNO Manpower Personnel Education &
Training [N1]
DCNO Information Plans & Strategy [N3/N5]
DCNO Communication Networks [N6]
Director of Naval Intelligence [N2]
DCNO Integration of Capabilities &
Resources [N8]
Chief of Naval Education &
Training [DCNP]
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING.
234 NAVY DEPARTMENT
Trang 8Personnel Boards The Naval Council of
Personnel Boards has four components:
1 The Naval Discharge Review Board reviews,
pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A § 1553, the
discharge or dismissal of former members
of the U.S Navy and Marine Corps, except
in cases of COURT-MARTIAL It determines
whether, under reasonable standards of
naval law and discipline, a discharge or
dismissal should be changed and, if so,
what change should be made
2 The Naval Complaints Review Board
reviews, upon request, decisional
docu-ments and index entries created by the
Naval Discharge Review Board after April
1, 1977, to determine whether they con-form to applicable regulations of the
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEand the Department
of the Navy
3 The Naval Clemency and Parole Board reviews, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A §§ 953–
954, U.S Navy and Marine Corps court-martial cases referred to it and grants or denies clemency and, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A
§ 952, reviews and directs that parole be granted or denied
4 The Physical Evaluation Board organizes and administers disability evaluations
Department of the Navy
Chief of Naval Operations
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
Naval Sea
Systems
Command
Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command
Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command
Naval Legal Service Command
Naval Air
Systems
Command
Strategic Systems Programs
Office of Naval Intelligence
United States Naval Observatory
Naval Facilities
Engineering
Command
Naval Supply
Systems
Command
Naval Education and Training Command
Naval Security Group Command
United States Naval Academy
Naval Strike &
Air Warfare Center
Naval Safety Center
Secretary
of the Navy
Operating Forces
Shore Establishment Operating Forces
Commandant of the Marine Corps
Support
Naval Reserve Forces
Operational Test and Evaluation Forces
U.S Naval Forces Europe
Military Sealift Command
Naval Special Warfare Command
U.S Naval Forces Central Command
Naval Network Warfare Command
Atlantic Fleet includes Fleet Marines
Naval Installations
Type Commanders
Pacific Fleet includes Fleet Marines
Type Commanders
Fleet Forces Command
Bureau of Naval Personnel Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING.
NAVY DEPARTMENT 235
Trang 9within the Department of the Navy, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A., ch 61, and other applicable provisions of law and regulation
Naval Records The Board for Correction of Naval Records is the highest echelon of review
of administrative errors and injustices suffered
by members and former members of the U.S
Navy and Marine Corps Established under 10 U.S.C.A § 1552 to give the secretary of the navy direction on taking actions that otherwise would require congressional decision, the board relieves Congress of the need for additional legislation This statutory civilian board reviews service members’ complaints about actions taken by various boards and officials in the department The secretary of the navy, acting through this board of civilians of the executive part of the department, is authorized to change naval or military records to correct an error or
to remove an injustice
United States Navy Chief of Naval Operations The chief of naval operations is the highest-ranking officer of the naval service The chief is the U.S Navy member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the group
of senior military officers who advise the president Under the secretary of the navy, the chief of naval operations exercises command over certain central executive organizations, assigned shore activities, and the Operating Forces of the Navy
In the broadest terms, the chief of naval operations is responsible for the navy’s readi-ness and for executing military orders The chief plans for and provides the personnel, material, weapons, facilities, and services to support the needs of the navy, with the exception of the Fleet Marine Forces; maintains water transpor-tation services, including sea transportranspor-tation services for the Department of Defense; directs the Naval Reserve; and exercises authority for matters of naval administration, including matters related to customs and traditions of the naval service, security, intelligence, discipline, communications, and operations
Operating Forces of the Navy The Operating Forces of the Navy are responsible for naval operations necessary to carry out the Depart-ment of the Navy’s role in upholding and advancing the national policies and interests
of the United States The Operating Forces of the Navy include the several fleets, seagoing
forces, Fleet Marine Forces, and other assigned Marine Corps forces, the Military Sealift Com-mand, and other forces and activities as may
be assigned by the president or the secretary
of the navy
The U.S Navy’s two fleets are composed
of ships, submarines, and aircraft The Pacific Fleet operates throughout the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and the Atlantic Fleet operates through-out the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea Additionally, the Naval Forces, Europe, is composed of forces from both fleets
Navy Command Structure The chief of naval operations manages and supports the Operating Forces of the navy through an organizational structure that is composed of sea systems, air systems, space and naval warfare systems, supply systems, naval facilities, strategic systems, naval personnel, naval medicine, oceanography, space command, legal services, computers and tele-communications, cryptology, intelligence, educa-tion and training, and naval doctrine command United States Marine Corps
The United States Marine Corps was established
on November 10, 1775, by resolution of the
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS The Marine Corps’s composition and functions are detailed in 10 U.S.C.A § 5063 Within the Department of the Navy, it is organized to include not fewer than three combat divisions and three aircraft wings, along with additional land combat, aviation, and other services Its purpose is to provide forces necessary to seize or defend advanced naval bases and to conduct land operations essential to a naval campaign In coordination with the U.S Army and the U.S Air Force, the Marine Corps develops the tactics, techniques, and equipment used by landing forces in amphibious (involving both sea and land) operations
The Marine Corps also provides detach-ments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the navy, provides security detach-ments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and performs such other duties as the president may direct The Marine Corps is composed of the Marine Corps headquarters, the Operating Forces, and the supporting establishment The Operating Forces consist of Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, Fleet Marine Force Pacific, Marine Corps Reserve, Marine Security Forces,
236 NAVY DEPARTMENT
Trang 10and Marine Detachments Afloat The
support-ing establishment includes recruitsupport-ing activities,
training installations, reserve support activities,
ground and aviation installations, and logistics
bases
Basic combat units of the marines are
deployed as Marine Air Ground Task Forces
(MAGTFs) There are four types of MAGTFs:
the Marine Expeditionary Force, the Marine
Expeditionary Brigade, the Marine
Expedition-ary Unit, and the Special Purpose MAGTF
Each group has a command element, a ground
combat element, an aviation combat element,
and a combat service support element Marine
Expeditionary Forces are routinely deployed on
amphibious ships to the Mediterranean Sea,
Persian Gulf, and Pacific Ocean Larger MAGTFs
can rapidly deploy by air, sea, or any
combina-tion of means from both coasts of the United
States and bases in the western Pacific to respond
to emergencies worldwide
United States Naval Academy
The United States Naval Academy is the
undergraduate college of the naval service
Located in Annapolis, Maryland, the academy
offers a comprehensive four-year program that
stresses excellence in academics, physical
edu-cation, professional training, conduct, and
honor It prepares young men and women to
be professional officers in the U.S Navy and
Marine Corps All graduates receive a bachelor
of science degree in one of 18 majors
FURTHER READINGS
Navy Website Available online at www.navy.mil (accessed
July 9, 2009).
U.S Government Manual Website Available online at www.
gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed July 9, 2009).
CROSS REFERENCES
Armed Services; Defense Department; Military Law.
NEAR V MINNESOTA
FREEDOM OF THE PRESSis a bedrock constitutional
principle However, the presumption that the
press cannot be restrained from publishing
stories was not established until 1931, when
the U.S SUPREME COURT issued its landmark
ruling in Near v Minnesota,, 283 U.S 697, 51 S
Ct 625, 75 L Ed 1357 This FIRST AMENDMENT
decision became a core constitutional precedent
that protects the press from unwarranted
government interference in the newsroom
Near v Minnesota grew out of the state of Minnesota’s disgust at the rise of yellow journalism Sensationalistic newspapers peddled the alleged financial and sexual misdeeds of prominent politicians and community leaders
These papers angered the subjects of their lurid stories, who demanded that something be done
In response the Minnesota legislature enacted a law in 1925 that provided for the abatement (prevention of publishing), as a public nuisance,
of a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical.” Under the law, which was dubbed the Minnesota Gag Law, a judge could also stop the publication of a newspaper if the judge concluded it was
“obscene, lewd, and lascivious.” The judge determined these facts without a jury and was empowered to enter an injunction ordering no future publication A person who violated the injunction and continued to publish could be charged with contempt, fined $1,000, and sentenced up to 12 months in jail A publisher could defend the periodical using truth as a defense, but the publisher had to demonstrate
“good motives” and “justifiable ends.”
The city of Minneapolis used the law to prosecute J M Near, the publisher of the Saturday Press The paper reported stories about police corruption and racketeering and did so in
a lively but reasonably accurate manner Near’s stories angered the mayor and police chief, who were alleged to have connections withORGANIZED CRIMEand may have been guilty of dereliction of their duties Near’s newspaper was tinged with anti-Semitism, anti-labor, and anti-Catholic sentiments, so Near drew little sympathy In November 1927 the court issued anINJUNCTION
ordering Near to destroy the last three months
of the Press and forbidding him to publish any future editions of the newspaper or any publication that contained the same type of material The judge had effectively prevented Near from publishing anything that did not conform to the good taste of Minnesota judges
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the law and the order against Near, paving the way for the U.S Supreme Court to hear the case
The U.S Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned the injunction and ruled the Minnesota statute unconstitutional as a PRIOR RESTRAINT on the press Chief Justice CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, in his majority opinion, noted that the law was“unusual, if not unique,” yet it raised important issues concerning freedom
of the press and FREEDOM OF SPEECH In prior
NEAR V MINNESOTA 237