It's amending something else, so to know what it's actually doing you'd need to look at "Section 3 of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note)" I'm looking at it right now to see about this whole thing. gimme a bit
EDIT: I've had a look at the document (not a lawyer, it's confusing as hell, may be wrong), and I'm not able to find anything that supports OP's claim here. It may well be buried reeeeal deep to throw anyone off it's trail, I may be wrong and blind, or it might not be in there at all. Try looking yourself here if you've got a good head on your shoulders. click notes and scroll down by a bit.
It's a gate to keep people out and dependant on legal experts. Unless you devote significant time to understanding legalese/jargon it's nearly impossible to decipher.
I just read the 6 pages in the link and I don’t see where it says the President retains control of the military.
It's amending something else, so to know what it's actually doing you'd need to look at "Section 3 of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note)" I'm looking at it right now to see about this whole thing. gimme a bit
EDIT: I've had a look at the document (not a lawyer, it's confusing as hell, may be wrong), and I'm not able to find anything that supports OP's claim here. It may well be buried reeeeal deep to throw anyone off it's trail, I may be wrong and blind, or it might not be in there at all. Try looking yourself here if you've got a good head on your shoulders. click notes and scroll down by a bit.
Thanks but reading that kind of stuff hurts my brain. I don’t know why legal documents can’t just be straight forward and to the point!
It's a gate to keep people out and dependant on legal experts. Unless you devote significant time to understanding legalese/jargon it's nearly impossible to decipher.
You are correct. Others seeing this.
You're not the only one. Lots have tried to fine that part and have come up empty-handed!