HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Does anyone know of this ...

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 03:04 PM

Does anyone know of this would apply to Flynn?

Rule: The U.S. Constitution prohibits retired military personnel and reservists from receiving pay from foreign governments without Congressional authorization. This can extend to receipt of pay from a U.S. contractor or subcontractor for providing services to a foreign government. In 37 U.S.C. 908, Congress authorizes the Secretary of State and Secretary of the appropriate Military Department to approve such receipt of pay. Each military service has implementing directives. Retired personnel and reservists who violate this Constitutional proscription may forfeit pay equal in amount to their foreign pay.

Just wondering.

9 replies, 1387 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Does anyone know of this would apply to Flynn? (Original post)
Phoenix61 Mar 2017 OP
WillowTree Mar 2017 #1
Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #2
WillowTree Mar 2017 #4
Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #5
WillowTree Mar 2017 #6
dumbcat Mar 2017 #7
Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #8
dumbcat Mar 2017 #9
bettyellen Mar 2017 #3

Response to Phoenix61 (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 03:15 PM

1. That's in the Constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 03:23 PM

2. Apparently

I got that info from military.com addressing post military issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 03:56 PM

4. I'd need someone to cite the passage that says this 'cause this doesn't sound right.

Not saying that there might not be a law about this, but I can't think of anything in the Big Doc that goes there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 07:58 PM

6. Those are actually both the same citing, just from different sources.

That said, I wonder if it actually could fly.

Very interesting and, at least for me, worth looking at a little further. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:02 PM

7. That is in the US Code

not the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 01:24 AM

8. ...Last paragraph of section 9 of article I of the Constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:44 PM

9. Is not what you cited above.

You cited US Code. The Constitution does not mention reservists or retired, the US Code does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 03:41 PM

3. Maddow pointed out he lied twice in his filings - once about who, once about how much ....

 

And if he'd been honest with his filings it would have been an issue before he was appointed. Like SESSIONS he had to lie to get his job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread