Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense (Makko Oko): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Infobox court case |name = Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense |court = Absolute Court of Satan,<br>Opposh, Makko Oko |image...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox court case | {{Infobox court case | ||
|name = Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense | |name = Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense | ||
|court = [[Absolute Court of Satan]],<br>[[Opposh]], [[Makko Oko]] | |court = [[Absolute Court of Satan (Makko Oko)|Absolute Court of Jesus]],<br>[[Opposh]], [[Makko Oko]] | ||
|image = | |image = | ||
|imagesize = | |imagesize = | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''''Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense''''' is a case that was decided by the [[Absolute Court of | '''''Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense''''' is a case that was decided by the [[Absolute Court of Jesus (Makko Oko)|Absolute Court of Jesus]] on July 12th, 2023. The case dealt with Daniel Reinhardt, a Lieutenant in the Liberation Forces, seeking a reversal of policies enacted against the revision through the MCJC (Military Criminal & Justice Code) for "violating their religious liberty and the religion". The case spanned 3 areas: Bodily Autonomy, Religious Freedom and Religious Expression. | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense is a case that was filed by Daniel Reinhardt on behalf of a group of petitioners on June 9th, 2023 with a ruling on July 12th, 2023. The MOD represented themselves, compared to the usual cases having MOJ representation. This case was the first one to be taken up by the Absolute Court of | Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense is a case that was filed by Daniel Reinhardt on behalf of a group of petitioners on June 9th, 2023 with a ruling on July 12th, 2023. The MOD represented themselves, compared to the usual cases having MOJ representation. This case was the first one to be taken up by the Absolute Court of Jesus since its founding. | ||
==Opinion Of The Court== | ==Opinion Of The Court== | ||
The court ruled on July 12th, 2023 that only | The court ruled on July 12th, 2023 that only one out of three articles enacted were unconstitutional, striking down the prohibition on bodily modifications. Chief Justice Richard Garst was the only dissenter, with him telling OBC at the time "I agree with the findings of the majority on Article 50, however, 51 and 52 should've also been stricken from enforcement". | ||
==Articles Questioned== | ==Articles Questioned== | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
ARTICLE LI - For the sanctity of the Liberation Forces, and of the full effectiveness of them therefore, this article shall hereby prohibit any soldier from performing or committing any religious duties, services or procedures whenever in a declared emergency situation, or while on the battlefield, whichever shall apply. It shall be an illegal act of duty therefore. | ARTICLE LI - For the sanctity of the Liberation Forces, and of the full effectiveness of them therefore, this article shall hereby prohibit any soldier from performing or committing any religious duties, services or procedures whenever in a declared emergency situation, or while on the battlefield, whichever shall apply. It shall be an illegal act of duty therefore. | ||
ARTICLE LII - For the defense of the homeland and of furthering interests of national security, this article shall hereby prohibit any soldier from having any religion other than | ARTICLE LII - For the defense of the homeland and of furthering interests of national security, this article shall hereby prohibit any soldier from having any religion other than Christianity, as the Constitution fairly defines. Having no declared religion shall not be prohibited. It shall be an illegal act of duty therefore and be a disqualifier for enlistment. | ||
==Effects== | ==Effects== | ||
Article 50 (L) of the MCJC was immediately suspended and later repealed in full. The case also set up a test referred to as the [[Reinhardt Test]] that lower courts may use to judge constitutionality of military law against religious law. | |||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Latest revision as of 19:09, 19 April 2024
| Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense | |
|---|---|
| Court | Absolute Court of Jesus, Opposh, Makko Oko |
| Decided | July 12, 2023 |
| Case opinions | |
| Bodily modifications are a religious tradition and exercise. They do not impede on the ability of the various forces to protect our sovereignty. Such articles therefore violate Article 40 of the Basic Rights. The court finds that Article 51 is duly necessary so as to not distract from the call of duty, and hereby find it a reasonable restriction. Finally, Article 52 falls in line with Article 41 of the Basic Rights and are thus constitutional. | |
| Dissent | Chief Justice Richard Garst |
Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense is a case that was decided by the Absolute Court of Jesus on July 12th, 2023. The case dealt with Daniel Reinhardt, a Lieutenant in the Liberation Forces, seeking a reversal of policies enacted against the revision through the MCJC (Military Criminal & Justice Code) for "violating their religious liberty and the religion". The case spanned 3 areas: Bodily Autonomy, Religious Freedom and Religious Expression.
Background
Reinhardt v. Ministry of Defense is a case that was filed by Daniel Reinhardt on behalf of a group of petitioners on June 9th, 2023 with a ruling on July 12th, 2023. The MOD represented themselves, compared to the usual cases having MOJ representation. This case was the first one to be taken up by the Absolute Court of Jesus since its founding.
Opinion Of The Court
The court ruled on July 12th, 2023 that only one out of three articles enacted were unconstitutional, striking down the prohibition on bodily modifications. Chief Justice Richard Garst was the only dissenter, with him telling OBC at the time "I agree with the findings of the majority on Article 50, however, 51 and 52 should've also been stricken from enforcement".
Articles Questioned
ARTICLE L - For the sanctity of the Liberation Forces, and of the full effectiveness of them therefore, this article shall hereby prohibit any soldier from having bodily modifications regardless of their civilian legality. It shall be an illegal act of duty therefore and be a disqualifier for enlistment.
ARTICLE LI - For the sanctity of the Liberation Forces, and of the full effectiveness of them therefore, this article shall hereby prohibit any soldier from performing or committing any religious duties, services or procedures whenever in a declared emergency situation, or while on the battlefield, whichever shall apply. It shall be an illegal act of duty therefore.
ARTICLE LII - For the defense of the homeland and of furthering interests of national security, this article shall hereby prohibit any soldier from having any religion other than Christianity, as the Constitution fairly defines. Having no declared religion shall not be prohibited. It shall be an illegal act of duty therefore and be a disqualifier for enlistment.
Effects
Article 50 (L) of the MCJC was immediately suspended and later repealed in full. The case also set up a test referred to as the Reinhardt Test that lower courts may use to judge constitutionality of military law against religious law.
