<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[political question doctrine - Philip D. Cave]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/political-question-doctrine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/political-question-doctrine/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:45:09 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – IV]]></title>
                <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/more-on-ltc-lakin-from-the-motions-hearing-iv/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.court-martial.com/blog/more-on-ltc-lakin-from-the-motions-hearing-iv/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:34:04 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[apf]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[court-martial]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[lakin]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[paul rolf jensen]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[political question doctrine]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[safeguardourconstitution]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[UCMJ]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>And now for the political question doctrine. See fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p>And now for the political question doctrine.</p>


<figure class="wp-block-image"><a href="/static/2010/09/image_thumb12.png" target="_blank" rel=" noreferrer noopener"><img decoding="async" src="/static/2010/09/image_thumb12.png" alt="image" title="image" /></a></figure>

<p>See fn. 2., I believe at one point Mr. Jensen was complaining that the military judge wasn’t going to apply any “civilian” cases.
<figure class="wp-block-image"><a href="/static/2010/09/image_thumb13.png" target="_blank" rel=" noreferrer noopener"><img decoding="async" src="/static/2010/09/image_thumb13.png" alt="image" title="image" /></a></figure>
</p>


<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p> 


 
 See fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.

</p>
</blockquote>


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>