<?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[preemption doctrine - Philip D. Cave]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/preemption-doctrine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/preemption-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[CGCCA affirms judge on an Article 62 appeal]]></title>
                <link>https://www.court-martial.com/blog/cgcca-affirms-judge-on-an-article-62-appeal/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.court-martial.com/blog/cgcca-affirms-judge-on-an-article-62-appeal/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip D. Cave]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:11:15 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[coast guard]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[court-martial]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[fraternization]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[personnel manual]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[preemption doctrine]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[UCMJ]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>United States v. Daly. Initially the accused was charged with violating a CG Personnel Manual regulation (about personal relationships) under Article 134, UCMJ. After some discussion of preemption issues (Dwight-san?), the charge was amended to remove the violation of a lawful order language. Then the defense challenged the charge on the basis of failure to&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[

<p><em>United States v. Daly</em>.</p>


<p>Initially the accused was charged with violating a CG Personnel Manual regulation (about personal relationships) under Article 134, UCMJ.  After some discussion of preemption issues (Dwight-san?), the charge was amended to remove the violation of a lawful order language.  Then the defense challenged the charge on the basis of failure to state an offense and notice.  After litigating the issue the military judge dismissed the charges, and the government appealed.</p>


<p>There is an interesting discussion of the CG Personnel Manual’s categorization of personal relationships into acceptable, unacceptable, and prohibited.  Apparently the evidence put the accused’s conduct into the unacceptable.  Unacceptable conduct is to be dealt with administratively only.</p>


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