Posted on Dec 5, 2016
James Mattis Might Not Qualify to be Secretary of Defense Under Federal Law
1.96K
11
9
4
4
0
If you want proof that 2016 is out to fuck up everything that is good, here you go. I sincerely hope that Congress acts as they did in 1950 so that General Mattis can serve in the role of SecDef.
James Mattis Might Not Qualify to be Secretary of Defense Under Federal Law
Posted from lawnewz.comPosted in these groups: 
SECDEF
SECDEF
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
PO3 Steven Sherrill This is a STUPID law...what difference does it make if he's been retired for 3 years of 7 years. The law requires that Miltary folks need to be retired for 7 years to qualify for this post. I seriously doubt he's going to be a different person if he waits 7 years. What the HECK?!?!?! LTC Greg Henning PO3 Ricky Foster
(2)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Sgt Kelli Mays I totally agree. We served in the U.S. Military. He served in the cult within the U.S. Military. He will always be a Marine. That is not a bad thing. A secretary of defense who has never served, would be a bad thing. This man has dedicated his life to serving this country. To deny him over not retiring soon enough would be a tragedy.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
I had read about the time in 1950, the only time they gave permission. In the one ruling it say's "never again". That will give grounds for a lawsuit even if he get permission, if the left really wants to botch this up.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO3 Ricky Foster General Mattis takes a hard line approach to ISIL that may not be palatable to the ultra liberals. He brings so much good to the table that I would hope that the politicians can see that he truly is not just a politically expedient choice for SecDef, but he is also a very good choice for the position.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Ricky Foster
PO3 Steven Sherrill - I agree, only pointing out the potential trouble he will face.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO3 Ricky Foster - I am trying to stay optimistic. It would figure that the one really great choice would be the most problematic.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google