Today's Article
How can our
government so easily
protect the idiots who
broke Wall Street, but
find it so hard to
protect the soldiers
who fight and die for
us?
government so easily
protect the idiots who
broke Wall Street, but
find it so hard to
protect the soldiers
who fight and die for
us?
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Why Don't Soldiers Have The Same Rights As CEOs?
By Cliff Montgomery - Apr, 13th, 2009
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) is meant to protect servicemembers from "judicial and
administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect their legal rights during military
service."
For instance, SCRA limits "the interest rate that may be charged on debts incurred prior to a person’s entry
into active duty military service," and protects "military families from being evicted from rental or mortgaged
property; from cancellation of life insurance; from taxation in multiple jurisdictions; from foreclosure of property
to pay taxes that are due; and from losing certain rights to public land."
Thus the law enables servicemembers to "devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation."
But a recent court decision questions "whether a servicemember has the right to bring a private cause of
action for violations" of the law, points out a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released on March
23rd. Thus much of the law's apparent purpose has been weakened.
As you read the following quotes from the CRS study, ask yourself a simple question: How can the U.S.
government so easily provide every protection and financial aid to the idiots who broke Wall Street, but find it
so difficult to provide a basic legal protection to the soldiers who fight and die for us?
"Congress has long recognized the need for protective legislation for servicemembers whose service to the
nation may compromise their ability to meet obligations and protect their legal interests.
"During the Civil War, Congress enacted an absolute moratorium on civil actions brought against soldiers and
sailors.
"During World War I, Congress passed the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1918 (SSCRA), which did
not create a moratorium on legal actions against servicemembers, but instead directed trial courts to apply
principles of equity to determine the appropriate action to take whenever a servicemember’s rights were
involved in a controversy.
"During World War II, Congress essentially re-enacted the expired 1918 statute as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’
Civil Relief Act of 1940, and then amended it substantially in 1942 to take into account the new economic and
legal landscape that had developed between the wars. During consideration of the amendments in the 87th
Congress, Congressman Overton Brooks (D-LA) stated:
"Congress enacted amendments on several occasions during subsequent conflicts, including 2002 when the
benefits of the SSCRA were extended to certain members of the National Guard. In 2003, Congress enacted
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) as a modernization and restatement of the SSCRA and its
protections.
"The SCRA is an exercise of Congress’s power to raise and support armies (U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 12)
and to declare war (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 11). The purpose of the act is to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the
national defense by protecting servicemembers, enabling them to 'devote their entire energy to the defense
needs of the Nation' by providing for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and
transactions that may adversely affect their legal rights during military service.
"Forgiving of all debts or the extinguishment of contractual obligations on behalf of servicemembers who have
been called up for active duty is not required, nor is absolute immunity from civil lawsuits provided. Instead, the
act provides for the suspension of claims and protection from default judgments. In this way, it seeks to
balance the interests of servicemembers and their creditors, spreading the burden of national military service
to a broader portion of the citizenry. [...]
"One of the [SCRA] measures that affects many who are called to active duty is the limit on the interest rate
that may be charged on debts incurred prior to a person’s entry into active duty military service. Other
measures protect military families from being evicted from rental or mortgaged property; from cancellation of
life insurance; from taxation in multiple jurisdictions; from foreclosure of property to pay taxes that are due; and
from losing certain rights to public land.
"In order to receive protections afforded under the SCRA, servicemembers are generally required to provide
notice of their desire to invoke the protection. [...] [But] the act does not specifically state who may bring an
application for relief, nor does it specifically exclude private individuals from filing a cause of action.
"Most courts considering the issue have found that a private cause of action exists under the SCRA.
"However, a recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Hurley v.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company, disagreed with decisions from U.S. district courts in Illinois, Louisiana,
Oregon, and Texas, and found that a private cause of action does not exist under the act.
"While the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether a private cause of action exists under the SCRA, the
Court has dealt with the issue of an implied cause of action under other statutes. In Cort v. Ash, the Court
established a four-part test for determining if a private cause of action exists under a particular statute.
However, in Alexander v. Sandoval, it appears that the Court has adopted a single-factor test rather than the
four-part test.
"The split in the U.S. district courts creates uncertainty in how the act may be enforced in the future. [...]
"The current ambiguity provides options for Congress. Congress may provide guidance to the courts by
clarifying the purpose and intent of the act. [...]
"Or Congress may want to amend individual sections of the act or the act in its entirety with language that
explicitly states whether a private cause of action exists. However, Congress also has the option to not act and
allow the courts to interpret the SCRA."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Apr, 13th, 2009
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) is meant to protect servicemembers from "judicial and
administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect their legal rights during military
service."
For instance, SCRA limits "the interest rate that may be charged on debts incurred prior to a person’s entry
into active duty military service," and protects "military families from being evicted from rental or mortgaged
property; from cancellation of life insurance; from taxation in multiple jurisdictions; from foreclosure of property
to pay taxes that are due; and from losing certain rights to public land."
Thus the law enables servicemembers to "devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation."
But a recent court decision questions "whether a servicemember has the right to bring a private cause of
action for violations" of the law, points out a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released on March
23rd. Thus much of the law's apparent purpose has been weakened.
As you read the following quotes from the CRS study, ask yourself a simple question: How can the U.S.
government so easily provide every protection and financial aid to the idiots who broke Wall Street, but find it
so difficult to provide a basic legal protection to the soldiers who fight and die for us?
"Congress has long recognized the need for protective legislation for servicemembers whose service to the
nation may compromise their ability to meet obligations and protect their legal interests.
"During the Civil War, Congress enacted an absolute moratorium on civil actions brought against soldiers and
sailors.
"During World War I, Congress passed the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1918 (SSCRA), which did
not create a moratorium on legal actions against servicemembers, but instead directed trial courts to apply
principles of equity to determine the appropriate action to take whenever a servicemember’s rights were
involved in a controversy.
"During World War II, Congress essentially re-enacted the expired 1918 statute as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’
Civil Relief Act of 1940, and then amended it substantially in 1942 to take into account the new economic and
legal landscape that had developed between the wars. During consideration of the amendments in the 87th
Congress, Congressman Overton Brooks (D-LA) stated:
- This bill springs from the desire of the people of the United States to make sure as far as possible that
men in service are not placed at a civil disadvantage during their absence. It springs from the inability of
men who are in service to properly manage their normal business affairs while away. It likewise arises
from the differences in pay which a soldier received and what the same man normally earns in civil life.
"Congress enacted amendments on several occasions during subsequent conflicts, including 2002 when the
benefits of the SSCRA were extended to certain members of the National Guard. In 2003, Congress enacted
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) as a modernization and restatement of the SSCRA and its
protections.
"The SCRA is an exercise of Congress’s power to raise and support armies (U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 12)
and to declare war (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 11). The purpose of the act is to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the
national defense by protecting servicemembers, enabling them to 'devote their entire energy to the defense
needs of the Nation' by providing for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and
transactions that may adversely affect their legal rights during military service.
"Forgiving of all debts or the extinguishment of contractual obligations on behalf of servicemembers who have
been called up for active duty is not required, nor is absolute immunity from civil lawsuits provided. Instead, the
act provides for the suspension of claims and protection from default judgments. In this way, it seeks to
balance the interests of servicemembers and their creditors, spreading the burden of national military service
to a broader portion of the citizenry. [...]
"One of the [SCRA] measures that affects many who are called to active duty is the limit on the interest rate
that may be charged on debts incurred prior to a person’s entry into active duty military service. Other
measures protect military families from being evicted from rental or mortgaged property; from cancellation of
life insurance; from taxation in multiple jurisdictions; from foreclosure of property to pay taxes that are due; and
from losing certain rights to public land.
"In order to receive protections afforded under the SCRA, servicemembers are generally required to provide
notice of their desire to invoke the protection. [...] [But] the act does not specifically state who may bring an
application for relief, nor does it specifically exclude private individuals from filing a cause of action.
"Most courts considering the issue have found that a private cause of action exists under the SCRA.
"However, a recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Hurley v.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company, disagreed with decisions from U.S. district courts in Illinois, Louisiana,
Oregon, and Texas, and found that a private cause of action does not exist under the act.
"While the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether a private cause of action exists under the SCRA, the
Court has dealt with the issue of an implied cause of action under other statutes. In Cort v. Ash, the Court
established a four-part test for determining if a private cause of action exists under a particular statute.
However, in Alexander v. Sandoval, it appears that the Court has adopted a single-factor test rather than the
four-part test.
"The split in the U.S. district courts creates uncertainty in how the act may be enforced in the future. [...]
"The current ambiguity provides options for Congress. Congress may provide guidance to the courts by
clarifying the purpose and intent of the act. [...]
"Or Congress may want to amend individual sections of the act or the act in its entirety with language that
explicitly states whether a private cause of action exists. However, Congress also has the option to not act and
allow the courts to interpret the SCRA."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!