The federal judiciary has described the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clauses as an interest guaranteeing a number of individual freedoms, including the right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-dignity, and self-determination (Gray v. Romeo, 697 F. Supp. 580 [1988]). The word liberty, the Supreme Court stated, means something more than freedom from physical restraint. “It means freedom to go where one may choose, and to act in such manner as his judgment may dictate for the promotion of his happiness [while pursuing] such callings and avocations as may be most suitable to develop his capacities, and give to them their highest enjoyment” ( MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113, 4 Otto 113, 24 L. Ed. 77 [1876][Field, J., dissenting]). The Supreme Court has said the full breadth of constitutional liberty is best explained as a rational continuum safeguarding every facet of human freedom from arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints (Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 81 S. Ct. 1752, 6 L. Ed. 2d 989 [1961]). The government may not intrude upon this liberty unless it can demonstrate a persuasive counter- vailing interest. However, the more the U.S. legal system cherishes a particular freedom, the less likely a court is to enforce a law that infringes upon it. In this regard the Supreme Court has identified certain fundamental rights that qual- ify for heightened judicial protection against laws threatening to restrict them. This list of fundamental rights includes most of the specific freedoms enumerated in the BILL OF RIGHTS,as well as the FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION; the right to vote and participate in the electoral process; the right to marry, procreate, and rear children; and the right to privacy. The right to privacy, which is not expressly enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, guarantees the freedom of adults to use BIRTH CONTROL (GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 [1965]) and the right of women to terminate their pre gnancy before the fetus becomes viable ( ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]). During the 1990s the right to privacy was enlarged to recognize the right of certain terminally ill or mentally incompetent persons to refuse medical treatment. In Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 111 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is in a persistent vegetative state, marked by the absence of any significant cognitive abilities, may seek to terminate life-sustaining measures, including artificial nutrition and hydration equipment, through a parent, spouse, or other appropriate guardian who demonstrates that the incompetent person previously expressed a clear desire to discontinue medical treatment under such circumstances. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later cited Cruzan in support of its decision establishing the right of competent but termi- nally ill patients to hast en their death by refusing medical treatment when the final stages of life are wrought with pain and indignity (Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 [9th Cir. 1996]). However, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that physicians possess no due process right to assist terminally ill patients in accelerating their death by prescribing a lethal dose of narcotics (Quill v. Vacco, 80 F.3d 716 [2d Cir. 1996]). In a notorious case involving Dr. JACK KEVORKIAN, the Michi gan Supreme Court ruled that patients have no due process right to physician-assisted SUICIDE (People v. Kevorkian, 447 Mich. 436, 527 N. W. 2d 714 [1994]). In the Cruzan decision, the manner in which the Supreme Court recogni zed a qualified right to die reflects the Enlightenment tradition of secular natural law. Where Locke inferred the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property from observing human behavior, the Supreme Court said in Cruzan that “a Cons titutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions.” In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905), the Supreme Court protected the constitutional right of a person to decline a smallpox vaccination that was required by state law. In Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178 (1990), the court ruled that the liberty interest guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses prohibits the government from compelling prisoners to take antipsychotic drugs. These cases, as well as others, the Supreme Court reasoned in Cruzan, establish that all U.S. citizens have a general right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, which includes the specific right of certain mentally incompetent and terminally ill persons to hasten their death. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 228 NATURAL LAW Another example of Supreme Court justices debating over natural law principles occurred in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 119 S. Ct. 2240, 144 L. Ed. 2d 2240 (1999). In that case, the court’s majority disagreed with Justice DAVID SOUTER ’s opinion regarding whether the concept of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY was originally based on natural law principles. Historical Natural Law Another school of natural law is known as historical natural law. According to this school, law must be made to conform with the well- established, but unwritten, customs, traditions, and experien ces that have evolved over the course of history. Historical natural law has played an integral role in the development of the Anglo-American system of justice. When King James I attempted to assert the absolute power of the British monarchy during the seventeenth century, for example, English jurist SIR EDWARD COKE argued that the sovereignty of the crown was limited by the ancient liberties of the English people, immemorial custom, and the rights prescribed by MAGNA CARTA in 1215. Magna Carta also laid the cornerstone for many U.S. constitutional liberties. The Supreme Court has traced the origins of grand juries, petit juries, and the writ of HABEAS CORPUS to Magna Carta. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT propor- tionality analysis, which requires that criminal sanctions bear some reasonable relationship to the seriousness of the offense, was foresha- dowed by the Magna Carta prohibition of excessive fines (Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 [1983]). The concept of due process was inherited from the requirement in Magna Carta that all LEGAL PROCEEDINGS comport with the “law of the land” ( IN RE WINSHIP, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 [1970]). DUE PROCESS OF LAW, the Supreme Court has observed, contains both procedural and histori- cal aspects that tend to converge in criminal cases ( ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 [1952] ). Procedurally, due process guarantees criminal defendants a fair trial. Historically, due process guarantees that no DEFENDANT may be convicted of a crime unless the government can prove his or her guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Although the REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD can be found now- here in the express language of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has said that the demand for a higher degree of persuasion in criminal cases has been repeatedly expressed since “ancient times” through the common-law tradition and is now “embodied in the Constitution ” (In re Winship). The legacy of the trial of JOHN PETER ZENGER, 17 Howell’s State Trials 675, further illustrates the symbiotic relationship between history and the law. In 1735, Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, was charged with libeling the governor of New York. At trial Zenger admitted that he had published the allegedly harmful article but argued that the article was not LIBELOUS because it contained no inaccurate statements. However, in the American colonies, truth was not considered a defense to LIBEL actions. Nonetheless, despite Zenger’s admis- sion of harmful publication and lack of a cognizable legal defense, the jury acquitted him. The Zenger acquittal spawned two ideas that have become entrenched in U.S. jurisprudence. First, the acquittal gave birth to the idea that truth is indeed a defense to accusati ons of libel. This defense received constitutional protection under the First Amendment in NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). Looking back, the Supreme Court came to describ e the Zenger trial as “the earliest and most famous American experience with freedom of the press” (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S. Ct. 1511, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426, [1995]). The Zenger trial is also the progenitor of JURY NULLIFICATION, which is the power of a jury, as the conscience of the community, to acquit defendants against whom there is overwhelming evidence of guilt in order to challenge a specific law, prevent oppression, or otherwise achieve justice. For example, the Zenger jurors issued an acquittal despite what amounted to a confession by the defendant in OPEN COURT. Some observers have compared the Zenger trial to the trial of O. J. SIMPSON, in which the former football star was acquitted of a double HOMICIDE notwith- standing DNA EVIDENCE linking him to the crimes. According to these observers, the defense attorney for Simpson, JOHNNIE COCHRAN,im- plored the jurors to ignore the evidence against his client and render a verdict that would send a message denouncing POLICE CORRUPTION, PERJURY, and racism. All three schools of natural law have influenced the development of U.S. law from GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATURAL LAW 229 colonial to modern times. In many ways the creation and RATIFICATION of the Constitution replaced Scripture and religion as the ultimate source of law in the United States. The federal Constitution makes the people the fundamental foundation of authority in the U.S. system of government. Many of the Framers characterized the Constitution as containing “sacred and inviolate” truths. In the same vein, THOMAS PAINE described the Constitution as a “political Bible.” In 1728 many Americans understood that the COMMON LAW encompassed the Law of Nature, the Law of Reason, and the Revealed Law of God, which are equally binding at all times, in all places, and to all persons. The law of history could have been added to this list. Between 1776 and 1784, 11 of the original 13 states made some allowance for the adoption of the English common law. One federal court said the Constitution “did not create any new rights to life, liberty or due process. These rights had existed for Englishmen since Magna Carta. The Declaration of Independence merely de- clared and established these rights for the American colonies” (Screven County v. Brier Creek Hunting & Fishing Club, 202 F. 2d 369 [5th Cir. 1953]). Thus, natural law in the United States may be best understood as the integration of history, secular reason, and divine inspiration. FURTHER READINGS Berman, Harold J. 1983. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. George, Robert P., ed. 2003. Natural Law. Burlington, VT: Ashgate/Dartmouth. Harris, Philip Anthony. 2002. The Distinction between Law and Ethics in Natural Law Theory. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Horwitz, Morton J. 1992. The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Levy, Leonard W. 1963. Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side. Chicago: Elephant Paperback. Locke, John. 1980. (First printed in 1690.) Second Treatise on Government. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing. Norberto, Bobbio. 1993. Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Pierce, Christine. 2001. Immovable Laws, Irresistible Rights: Natural Law, Moral Rights, and Feminist Ethics. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas. Pojman, Louis P. 1995. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Weinreb, Lloyd. 1987. Natural Law and Justice. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. Wood, Gordon S. 1972. The Creation of the American Republic: 1776–1787. New York: Norton. Zuckert, Michael P. 1994. Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Abortion; Constitution of the United States; Death and Dying; Hobbes, Thomas; Jurisprudence; Libel and Slander; “Second Treatise on Government” (Appendix, Primary Document). NATURAL LAW PARTY Citizens of Fairfield, Iowa, formed the Natural Law Party in April 1992. In a few short months, the party succeeded in placing its presidential ticket on the ballot in 28 states for the 1992 election. By 1996 the party was offering candidates for elective office in all 50 states. Despite its fast growth in the 1990 s, the party declined just as rapidly in the 2000s. By 2004, the national office of the Natural Law Party had closed its doors. Fairfield, Iowa, is the site of Maharishi International University, a school that teaches students to use transcendental meditation (TM) to achieve good health and a heightened aware- ness and understanding of the self and the world. The school, founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, provided the Natural Law Party with the inspiration and resources to enter the field of electoral politics. The Natural Law Party fashioned an un- usual and ambitious political platform. The party endorsed the practice of TM as a humane and cost-effective way to rehabilitate convicted and accused criminals. The party offered a proactive alternative to the health care system, a system that party candidates called “disease care.” Instead of pouring millions of dollars each year into the creation of drugs to manage disease, the Natural Law Party promoted health education and stress management, along with TM, as ways to avoid disease. Dr. John S. Ha gelin became the standard- bearer for the Natural Law Party. Hagelin, a renowned physicist, was the party’s nominee for president in 1992, 1996, and 2000. Although he was a professor at the Maharishi International University and a staunch proponent of the benefits of TM, Hagelin worked to expand the party’s scope beyond the TM message. The party emphasized the importance of social equality for all persons, and party candidates talked of world peace as a reachable goal. The party platform also stressed environmental protection. For example, the party endorsed alternative methods of energy production, such GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 230 NATURAL LAW PARTY as a redirection of resources away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. Although party membership grew rapidly, reportedly reaching more than 100,000 mem- bers at one time, the party’s goals in the political process proved elusive. In 1996 Hagelin was one of only five presidential candidates who was on enough ballots to conceivably win the election in the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and from a party that had held primaries. Hagelin, along with REFORM PARTY candidate H. Ros s Perot and LIBERTARIAN PARTY candidate Harry Browne, sought to participate in the nationally televi sed presidential debates based on these accomplish- ments. However, the Commission on Presiden- tial Debates, a private nonprofit organization formed by the Democratic and Republican National Committees, concluded that Hagelin, Perot, and Browne had no realistic chance of winning the election and excluded all three from the debates. Hagelin won 113,667 votes in the national election, or about 0.12 percent of the vote. In 1999 Hagelin announced his candidacy for both the Natural Law Party and the Reform Party presidential nominations. When the Reform Party split over the candidacy of PATRICK BUCHANAN , supporters of Hagelin took the name Independence Party. In the 2000 elections, Natural Law-Independence Party coalition can- didates received more than 1.4 million votes. In March 2003 the Natural Law Party condemned the invasion of Iraq by the United States. In April 2003 the Party announced that Represen- tative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) had reintro- duced his legislation to establish a U.S. Department of Peace, legislation that Hagelin had helped to draft. Hagelin did not run as the Natural Law Party’s candidate in the 2004 election. Instead, the party supported Kucinich’s candidacy. Hagelin announced that he would become president of the U.S. Peace Government, which the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi established in 2000. The Natural Law Party’snationalhead- quarters closed in 2004, and the state and local affiliates of the party had disbanded by 2006. FURTHER READINGS Carlson, Peter. 2000. “A Two-System Party Results in Dual (and Dueling) Nominees.” Washington Post (August 14). Natural Law Party. Available online at http://www.natural- law.org/ (accessed May 19, 2009). Roth, Robert. 1999. A Reason to Vote: Breaking the Two- Party Stranglehold. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. The U.S. Peace Government. Available online at http://www. uspeacegovernment.org/ (accessed May 19, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Libertarian Party; Third Party. NATURALIZATION The process under federal law whereby a foreign- born person may be granted citizenship. In order to qu alify for naturalization, an applicant must meet a number of statutory requirements, includ- ing those related to residency, literacy, and education, as well as an exhibition of “good moral character” and a demonstration of an attachment to constitutional principles upon which the United States is based. CROSS REFERENCES Aliens; Citizens. NAVIGABLE RIVERS See INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS. NAVIGABLE WATERS Navigable waters are those that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods. Under U.S. law, bodies of water are distinguished according to their use. The dis- tinction is particularly important in the case of navigable waters, which are used for business or transportation. Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities. The federal gov- ernment can determine how the waters are used, by whom, and under what conditions. It John S. Hagelin (far right) was the National Law Party’s presidential candidate in 1992, 1996, and 2000. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NAVIGABLE WATERS 231 also has the power to alter the waters, such as by dredging or building dams. Generally a state or private property ow ner who is inconvenienced by such work has no remedy against the federal government unless state or private property itself is taken; if such property is taken, the laws of EMINENT DOMAIN would apply, which may lead to compensation for the landowner. The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S. Constitution. Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S. SUPREME COURT has held that the COMMERCE CLAUSE (Article 1, Section 8) gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce. This view originated in 1824 in the landmark case Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of ve ssels. It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence. This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters and in countless other areas of interstate commerce. In practical terms federal regulation of navigable waters takes many forms. One area of this regulation covers matters of transporta- tion and commerce: for example, rules govern- ing the licensing of ships and the dumping of waste. A second area applies to the alteration of the navigable waters, which is strictly controlled by federal law. The Rivers and Harbors APPROPRI- ATION Act of 1899 forbids building any unautho- rized obstruction to U.S. navigable waters and gives enforcement powers to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A third area of regulation involves WORKERS’ COMPENSATION claims. The concept of navigable waters is important in claims made under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901–950). The act provides that employers are liable for injuries to sailors that occur upon navigable waters of the United States. The vast body of federal regulation concern- ing navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult task of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject to the law or regulation in question). Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test. The Supreme Court test affects t he reach of the federal CLEAN WATER ACT, 86 Stat. 877, w hich sets standards and review processes for industries that discharge material into navigable waters. In addition, the test can influence decisions on whether a unit of government can assert IMMUNITY from damages suits. In Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, Georgia, 547 U.S. 189, 126 S. Ct. 1689, 164 L. Ed. 2d 367 (2006), the Supreme Court rejected a county government’s claim that it should be granted immunity because in cases involving ships, which is known as admiralty law, the county’s “exercise of core state functions with regard to navigable waters” barred civil lawsuits. The Court cited precedents in admi ralty law that demonstrated it had not created a special category governing SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.Tothe contrary, the Court used prior cases to conclude that sovereign immunity did not bar an admiralty suit against a city. Therefore, the county could not avoid litigation on the damages claim. FURTHER READINGS “Annotated Federal Statutes of Limitation: Title 33— Navigation and Navigable Waters.” 1995. Southwestern University Law Review 24 (winter). Findley, Roger. 2004. Environmental Law in Nutshell. 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group. Getches, David. 1997.Water Law in a Nutshell. 3d ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group. Shiva, Vandana. 2002. Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press. CROSS REFERENCES Admiralty and Maritime Law; Pilot; Riparian Rights; Water Rights. NAVY DEPARTMENT The U.S. Navy was founded on October 13, 1775, when Congress enacted the first legislation creating GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 232 NAVY DEPARTMENT the Continental Navy of the American Revolution. The Department of the Navy and the Office of Secretary of the Navy were established by the act of April 30, 1798 (10 U.S.C.A. §§ 5011, 5031). For nine years before that date, by act of August 7, 1789 (1 Stat. 49), the conduct of naval affairs was under the secretary of war. The National Security Act Amendments of 1949 provided that the Department of the Navy be a military department within the Department of Defense (63 Stat. 578). The navy is one of three primary compo- nents of the U.S. military. Incorporating the Marine Corps, it serves along with the army and the air force as part of the nation’s defense. The navy’s mission is to protect the United States as directed by the president or the secretary of defense by the effective prosecution of war at sea. With its Marine Corps component, the navy’s objectives are to seize or defend advanced naval bases; support, as required, the forces of all military departments of the United States; and maintain freedo m of the seas. The Depart- ment of the Navy includes the U.S. Coast Guard when it is operating as a service in the navy. Office of the Secretary of the Navy The secretary of the navy is the head of the Department of the Navy. Appointed by the president of the United States, the secretary serves under the direction, authority, and control of the cabinet-level secretary of defense (10 U.S.C.A. § 5031). The secretary is responsi- ble for the policies and control of the navy, including its organization, administration, func- tioning, and efficiency. Next in succession for the position is the under secretary of the nav y, who functions as deputy and principal assistant to the secretary and has full authority in the general ma nagement of the department. Civilian Executive Assistants The civilian executive assistants are the principal advisers and assistants to the secretary of the navy. They include the under secretary of the navy, the assistant secretaries of the navy, and the general counsel of the navy. With department-wide responsibilities for administration, the civilian executive assistants carry out their duties in harmony with the statutory positions of the chief of naval operations, who is the principal military adviser and executive to the secretary regarding naval matters, and the commandant of the Marine Corps, who is the principal military adviser and executive regarding Mar ine Corps matters. Each is authorized and directed to act for the secretary within his or her assigned area of responsibility. Staff Assistants The staff assistants to the secretary of the navy are the naval inspector general, the comptroller of the navy, the auditor general of the navy, and the chief of informa- tion. The secretary or the law has established the following positions and boards for administra- tive purposes. Judge Advocate General The JUDGE ADVOCATE general is the senior officer and head of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps and the Office of the Judge Advocate General. The officer’s primary responsibilities are to administer mili- tary justice throughout the Department of the Navy, perform functions required or authorized by the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, and provide technical supervision for the Naval Justice School at Newport, Rhode Island. In cooperation with the general counsel to the navy, the judge advocate general also has broad responsibility for providing legal advice and related services to the secretary of the navy on military justice, ethics, administrative law, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, operational and INTERNA- TIONAL LAW and treaty interpretatio n, and LITIGATION involving these issues. Officers of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps and judge advocates of the Marine Corps provide a variety of legal services to both individual service members and naval commands, ranging from personal representation for individual service members for courts-martial to legal services for naval commands on matters such as investiga- tions and claims. Naval Criminal Investigative Service The director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service commands a worldwide organization with representation in more than 160 geo- graphic locations to provide criminal investiga- tion, counterintelligence, law enforcement, information, and personnel security support to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, both ashore and afloat. Office of Naval Research Established by act of Congress on August 1, 1946 (10 U.S.C.A. §§ 5150–5153), the Office of Naval Research is the integrated headquarters of the navy for science and technology investment. It manages funding for basic research, exploratory develop- ment, advanced technology development, manufacturing technologies, and small business support. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NAVY DEPARTMENT 233 Department of the Navy Auditor General Chief of Information DoN Chief Information Officer Judge Advocate General of the Navy Chief of Naval Operations Naval Inspector General Director Program Appraisal Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management) Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment) General Counsel of the Department of the Navy Director Small & Disadvantaged Business Utillization Assistant for Administration Chief of Legislative Affairs Secretary of the Navy Under Secretary of the Navy Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program [NooN] Chief of Naval Research Master Chief Petty Officer [MCPON] Director Test & Evaluation Tech. Reqs. [No91] Surgeon General of the Navy [No93] Chief of Navy Reserve [No95] Vice Chief of Naval Operations Director, Navy Staff [DNS] Chief of Chaplains [No97] Director for Material Readiness & Logistics [N 4 ] DCNO Manpower Personnel Education & Training [N1] DCNO Information Plans & Strategy [N3/N5] DCNO Communication Networks [N6] Director of Naval Intelligence [N2] DCNO Integration of Capabilities & Resources [N8] Chief of Naval Education & Training [DCNP] ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 234 NAVY DEPARTMENT Personnel Boards The Naval Council of Personnel Boards has four components: 1. The Naval Discharge Review Board reviews, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A. § 15 53, the discharge or dismissal of former members of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, except in cases of COURT-MARTIAL. It determines whether, under reasonable standards of naval law and discipline, a disc harge or dismissal shou ld be changed and, if so, what change should be made. 2. The Naval Complaints Review Board reviews, upon request, decisional docu- ments and index entries created by the Naval Discharge Review Board after April 1, 1977, to determine whether they con- form to applicable regulations of the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and the Department of the Navy. 3. The Naval Clemency and Parole Board reviews, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 953– 954, U.S. Navy and Marine Corps court- martial cases referred to it and grants or denies clemency and, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A. § 952, reviews and directs that parole be granted or denied. 4. The Physical Evaluation Board org anizes and administers disability evaluations Department of the Navy Chief of Naval Operations Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Naval Sea Systems Command Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command Naval Legal Service Command Naval Air Systems Command Strategic Systems Programs Office of Naval Intelligence United States Naval Observatory Naval Facilities Engineering Command Naval Supply Systems Command Naval Education and Training Command Naval Security Group Command United States Naval Academy Naval Strike & Air Warfare Center Naval Safety Center Secretary of the Navy Operating Forces Shore Establishment Operating Forces Commandant of the Marine Corps Support Naval Reserve Forces Operational Test and Evaluation Forces U.S. Naval Forces Europe Military Sealift Command Naval Special Warfare Command U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Naval Network Warfare Command A tlant ic Fleet include s Fleet Marines Naval Installations Type Commanders P acific Fl eet inc lude s Flee t Marines Type Commanders Fleet Forces Command Bureau of Naval Personnel Bureau of Medicine and Surgery ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NAVY DEPARTMENT 235 within the Department of the Navy, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A., ch. 61, and other applicable provisions of law and regulation. Naval Records The Board for Correction of Naval Records is the highest echelon of review of administrative errors and injustices suffered by members and former members of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Established under 10 U.S.C.A. § 1552 to give the secretary of the navy direction on taking actions that otherwise would require congressional decision, the board relieves Congress of the need for additional legislation. This statutory civilian board reviews service members’ complaints about actions taken by various boards and officials in the department. The secretary of the navy, acting through this board of civilians of the executive part of the department, is authorized to change naval or military records to correct an error or to remove an injustice. United States Navy Chief of Naval Operations The chief of naval operations is the highest-ranking officer of the naval service. The chief is the U.S. Navy member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the group of sen ior military officers who advise the president. Under the secretary of the navy, the chief of naval operations exercises command over certain central executive organizations, assigned shore activi ties, and the Operating Forces of the Navy. In the broadest terms, the chief of naval operations is responsible for the navy’s readi- ness and for executing military orders. The chief plans for and provides the personnel, material, weapons, facilities, and services to support the needs of the navy, with the exception of the Fleet Marine Forces; maintains water transpor- tation services, including sea transportation services for the Department of Defense; directs the Naval Reserve; and exercises authority for matters of naval administration, including matters related to customs and traditions of the naval service, security, intelligence, discipline, communications, and operations. Operating Forces of the Navy The Operating Forces of the Navy are responsible for naval operations necessary to carry out the Depart- ment of the Navy ’s role in upholding and advancing the national policies and interests of the United States. The Operating Forces of the Navy include the several fleets, seagoing forces, Fleet Marine Forces, and other assigned Marine Corps forces, the Military Sealift Com- mand, and other forces and activities as may be assigned by the pr esident or the secreta ry of the navy. The U.S. Navy’s two fleets are composed of ships, submarines, and aircraft. The Pacific Fleet operates throughout the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and the Atlantic Fleet operates through- out the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Additionally, the Naval Forces, Europe, is composed of forces from both fleets. Navy Command Structure The chief of naval operations manages and supports the Operating Forces of the navy through an organizational structure that is composed of sea systems, air systems, space and naval warfare systems, supply systems, naval facilities, strategic systems, naval personnel, naval medicine, oceanography, space command, legal services, computers and tele- communications, cryptology, intelligence, educa- tion and training, and naval doctrine command. United States Marine Corps The United States Marine Corps was established on November 10, 1775, by resolution of the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS. The Marine Corps’s composition and functions are detailed in 10 U.S.C.A. § 5063. Within the Department of the Navy, it is organized to include not fewer than three combat divisions and three aircraft wings, along with additional land combat, aviation, and other services. Its purpose is to provide forces necessary to seize or defend advanced naval bases and to conduct land operations essential to a naval campaign. In coordination with the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, the Marine Corps develops the tactics, techniques, and equipment used by landing forces in amphibious (involving both sea and land) operations. The Marine Corps also provides detach- ments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the navy, provides security detach- ments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and performs such other duties as the president may direct. The Marine Corps is composed of the Marine Corps headquarters, the Operating Forces, and the supporting establishment. The Operating Forces co nsist of Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, Fleet Marine Force Pacific, Marine Corps Reserve, Marine Security Forces, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 236 NAVY DEPARTMENT and Marine Detachments Afloat. The support- ing establishment includes recru iting activities, training installations, reserve support activities, ground and aviation installations, and logistics bases. Basic combat units of the marines are deployed as Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs). There are four types of MAGTFs: the Marine Expeditionary Force, the Marine Expeditionary Brigade, the Marine Expedition- ary Unit, and the Special Purpose MAGTF. Each group has a command element, a ground combat element, an aviation combat element, and a combat service support element. Marine Expeditionary Forces are routinely deployed on amphibious ships to the Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, and Pacific Ocean. Larger MAGTFs can rapidly deploy by air, sea, or any combina- tion of means from both coasts of the United States and bases in the western Pacific to respond to emergencies worldwide. United States Naval Academy The United States Naval Academy is the undergraduate college of the naval service. Located in Annapolis, Maryland, the academy offers a comprehensive four-year program that stresses excellence in academics, physical edu- cation, professional training, conduct, and honor. It prepares young men and women to be professional officers in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. All graduates receive a bachelor of science degree in one of 18 majors. FURTHER READINGS Navy Website. Available online at www.navy.mil (accessed July 9, 2009). U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at www. gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed July 9, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Armed Services; Defense Department; Military Law. NEAR V. MINNESOTA FREEDOM OF THE PRESS is a bedrock constitutional principle. However, the presumption that the press cannot be restrained from publishing stories was not established until 1931, when the U.S. SUPREME COURT issued its landmark ruling in Near v. Minnesota,, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357. This FIRST AMENDMENT decision became a core constitutional precedent that protects the press from unwarranted government interference in the newsroom. Near v. Minnesota grew out of the state of Minnesota’s disgust at the rise of yellow journalism. Sensationalistic newspapers peddled the alleged financial and sexual misdeeds of prominent politicians and community leaders. These papers angered the subjects of their lurid stories, who demanded that something be done. In response the Minn esota legislature enacted a law in 1925 that provided for the abatement (prevention of publishing), as a public nuisance, of a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical.” Under the law, which was dubbed the Minnesota Gag Law, a judge could also stop the publication of a newspaper if the judge concluded it was “obscene, lewd, and lascivious.” The judge determined these facts without a jury and was empowered to enter an injunction ordering no future publication. A person who violated the injunction and continued to publish could be charged with contempt, fined $1,000, and sentencedupto12monthsinjail.Apublisher could defend the periodical using truth as a defense, but the publisher had to demonstrate “good motives” and “justifiable ends.” The city of Minneapolis used the law to prosecute J. M. Near, the publisher of the Saturday Press. The paper reported stories about police corruption and racketeering and did so in a lively but reasonably accurate manner. Near ’s stories angered the mayor and police chief, who were alleged to have connections with ORGANIZED CRIME and may have been guilty of dereliction of their duties. Near’s newspaper was tinged with anti-Semitism, anti-labor, and anti-Catholic sentiments, so Near drew little sympathy. In November 1927 the court issued an INJUNCTION ordering Near to destroy the last three months of the Press and forbidding him to publish any future editions of the newspaper or any publication that contained the same type of material. The judge had effectively prevented Near from publishing anything that did not conform to the good taste of Minnesota judges. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the law and the order against Near, paving the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The U.S. Supreme Cour t, in a 5-4 decision, overturned the injunction and ruled the Minnesota statute unconstitutional as a PRIOR RESTRAINT on the press. Chief Justice CHARLES EVANS HUGHES , in his majority opinion, noted that the law was “unusual, if not unique,” yet it raised important issues concerning freedom of the press and FREEDOM OF SPEECH. In prior GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NEAR V. MINNESOTA 237 . PERJURY, and racism. All three schools of natural law have influenced the development of U.S. law from GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATURAL LAW 229 colonial to modern times. In. business support. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NAVY DEPARTMENT 233 Department of the Navy Auditor General Chief of Information DoN Chief Information Officer Judge Advocate General of the. Forces Command Bureau of Naval Personnel Bureau of Medicine and Surgery ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW,