Image: Wikimedia Commons
Making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, 38 military chaplains are challenging Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s authority to issue the 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate and its implementation, which are largely considered illegal and unconstitutional by those who have sought relief from its tyrannical enforcement.
The Gateway Pundit spoke to Arthur A. Schulcz Sr., retired Vietnam War veteran, and lead attorney in Alvarado v. Austin. On December 29, 2023, he said, the chaplains filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ dismissal of their claims for an injunction against continued retaliation for requesting religious accommodation and the District Court’s dismissal of their constitutional and statutory claims.
The Fourth Circuit said the claims were moot, meaning the courts could not provide a remedy because the military had allegedly fixed the chaplains’ concerns regarding the vaccine.
On March 21, the chaplains filed an application for injunctive relief with the Supreme Court to protect them during the petition process and thereafter. The group of chaplains is calling for the cessation of retaliatory actions used against them for refusing to get the jab on the grounds of religious objection.
And on Friday, April 26, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to stay, or pause, the policies that have continued to impact these chaplains’ careers.
Schulcz said, “The Department of Defense (DOD) has waged an insurgency against Congress by not returning these chaplains to their pre-mandate status as required by Congress’s December 22, 2023, order to rescind the mandate.” According to Schulcz, “the mandate did nothing more than attempt to serve as a purge of those who believe in following conscience, violating the First and Fifth Amendments and statutory protections of all service members.
“All the rules were changed,” he said. “There was no intent to grant any religious accommodations, [and] that should shake every citizen’s faith in the military leadership.”
According to Schulcz, “The volunteer military is in danger of being destroyed by people who have no respect for the law or persons, especially religious liberty, and that is illustrated in our case.” It is his hope that the Supreme Court will intervene and “do its duty to uphold the law.”
Schulcz asked, “What institution do you turn to if the Supreme Court essentially says your conscience doesn’t matter or if the Court ignores obvious untruths from our military leaders and deliberately ignores what Congress has said DOD must do?”
According to him, “rescinding the mandate should mean restoring military personnel to their status before the mandate was issued, and that hasn’t been done.” He pointed out, “One of the primary issues in our case is whether the Secretary of Defense can lie to Congress and the courts without accountability.”
Following the rescission of the vaccine mandate, “adverse actions” from the files of those who requested religious accommodations are supposed to be removed. “But this is not true,” Schulcz said. While discipline actions like a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) have been removed, he pointed out that “the Secretary has not returned our chaplains and others to the status quo.”
He explained, “We have people that have failed promotion twice because of the bad fitness reports they received after filing for religious accommodation request, [noting that] two failures of promotion below the grade of Lieutenant Colonel or Commander in the Navy subject you to separation at the government’s whim.”
“We have chaplains whose reports during Covid guarantee they will not be promoted,” Schulcz noted. “One of our chaplains had his career destroyed during the ‘voluntary’ phase of the vaccine for questioning his commander about telling the troops the vaccine was voluntary and then punishing them for not volunteering,” he added. “But that chaplain’s job was to advise the commander of ethical and moral issues.”
Schulcz also pointed out, “the DOD has not been challenged over the fact that people have been hurt by lowered efficiency reports, missed schooling, etc., [adding that] all these things are forbidden by Section 533 [of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)].”
“What the mandate reveals and what we challenge is a complete disregard for the law,” he argued.
“Even now, the Secretary refuses to acknowledge anything was wrong,” said Schulcz, “If Congress said ‘rescind,’ the Secretary’s job is to salute and say, ‘yes, Congress,’ then examine the damage that’s been done and do something to fix it.”
But according to Schulcz, Austin has not done that. “Thus, his disobedience and lying to Congress is a matter the courts can and must be addressed,” he said. “Otherwise, woe to us as a nation.”
“Afterall, the right of conscience is integral to who we are as a nation and integral to the First Amendment, and this administration is doing what has never been done before,” shared Schulcz. “[It’s] substituting itself for God as the source of authority that determines right and wrong, and good and evil.”
“I deeply understand that the American fighting man and woman is a treasure and a blessing,” Schulcz said. “The American fighting man is unique, [because] they are the keystone in fulfilling the last stated objective for forming the Constitution, “to preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”
For him, “the word ‘blessings’ is not a political or legal term.” Rather, he said, “The word reflects the fact that our founders knew our liberty was given to us as a gift by the Divine Providence to whom they appealed in the Declaration of Independence—a bold statement made by men with no army, no navy, no arms industry, no finances, and no friends except the Divine Providence to whom they appealed.”
“Their conscience compelled them to oppose the tyrant who denied the liberty and rights they had become accustomed to and were guaranteed in their law and history, rights they believed came from the Divine Creator,” Schulcz said, pointing out that “freedom of conscience is necessary for every First Amendment right.”
For chaplains in today’s military, he said, “their conscience is formed by faith and protected by Section 533 [of the NDAA], which Mr. Austin has ignored…a grave breach of the public trust.”
“Pastors played key roles in our War for Independence,” Schulcz shared. “The British called them the Black Robed Regiment.” Considering this, he said, “How fortunate that once again we have pastors in uniform defending ‘the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.’”
Schulcz prays for a just decision to be made by the Supreme Court, one that recognizes the case is not moot and reinforces the public’s trust in the nation’s courts because they enforce the rule of law for all, including the government.
The post Taking the Secretary of Defense to Task, Military Chaplains Are Asking the Supreme Court to Simply Enforce the Rule of Law appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.