Abstract
Much has been said or written about the rights of servicemen under the new Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is the source of American written military law. Some of the major criticisms of military law have been that it is too harsh, too vague, and too careless of the right to due process of law. A large portion of this criticism has been leveled at Article 134, the general, catch-all article of the Code.
I. Standards in Civilian Criminal Laws
II. History of Military Law
III. Constitutional Source of Military Law
IV. History of the General Article
V. Article 134 Dissected: Delegation to the President Examined … A. Crimes and Offenses Not Capital … B. The Crime of “All Disorders and Neglects to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline in the Armed Forces, [and] All Conduct of a Nature to Bring Discredit upon the Armed Forces”
VI. Customs of the Service and the General Article … A. What Is “Military Custom”? … B. Historical Use of Custom to Interpret the General Article … C. Custom as a Device to Avoid the Void for Vagueness Doctrine
VII. Inconsistency of Recent Decisions Regarding Article 134
Conclusion
Recommended Citation
James W. Hewitt,
Constitutional Law—Uniform Code of Military Justice—General Article Void for Vagueness?,
34 Neb. L. Rev. 518
(1954)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol34/iss3/8