To Major Watson, the Journalist, and All Who Serve: The Red Scare Legacy and Our Constitutional Duty
As Major Watson has already stated, every service member swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the foundational obligation of their service, yet they are being told that fulfilling this oath—even when faced with a domestic tyrant—is a violation of "conduct" rules. How can an officer truly uphold the Constitution if they are legally gagged from speaking up for it simply because they are in uniform?
The UCMJ, including Article 133, was codified in 1950 under the hysteria of the Red Scare. It was never intended to serve the Founding Fathers' vision of a military that answers to the Constitution; it was designed by a fearful government to suppress dissent. For 200 years, the American tradition did not include these sweeping muzzles on military speech. To suggest that a 1950s code takes precedence over the Founders’ intent is a betrayal of the very Constitution our soldiers swore to protect.
Major Watson is not a lone outlier; he is a spark. If thousands of military members, recognizing their duty to the Constitution over the convenience of a regulation, were to stand up and call for the impeachment of a tyrant, the system could not sustain its suppression. They cannot arrest the entire military. If enough voices unite, the government is forced to listen.
To Major Watson: Do not accept this fate. The Bruen standard provides a path to challenge the constitutionality of these reactionary codes. If you secure a legal team that understands constitutional history—rather than just military administrative law—there is a viable path to keeping your uniform and your career.
It is time to dismantle the 1950s relic that keeps the military subservient to tyranny. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the UCMJ. It is time for our service members to hold the government to that standard.