Also, is there any real life U.S. precedent regarding a person serving as both a member of Congress and a general in the military?
Precedent strongly suggests that one cannot simultaneously be an officer of the military and a member of Congress. This was definitively settled in 1803, when Representative John Van Ness was made a major in the militia. Even though Van Ness said that his position was unpaid, and that there was no danger of executive influence corrupting him, the remainder of the house voted unanimously to declare him disqualified. Any further doubts were cleared away in 1861, when the Senate decided to follow the same rule. When Senator James Lane became a Brigadier-General, a Senate committee emphatically declared, "the office of brigadier-general under the United States is incompatible with that of member of either House of Congress. By accepting the office of brigadier-general, the sitting member, Mr. Lane, virtually resigned his seat in the Senate, and it became vacant at that time."
These precedents seem to be quite consistent with the actual text of the Constitution. Where the Constitution wishes to draw a distinction between civilians and members of the military, it does so quite clearly. For instance, only "
civil Officers of the United States" are subject to impeachment, thereby clearly excluding the possibility of impeaching admirals, for example. On the other hand, the disqualification clause does not use the word civil, and hence embraces both types of officials.
As to the few modern members of Congress who apparently also hold military office, I can only say that each house seems to be ignoring both the Constitution and its own precedents. One should not draw any inference from these actions, however, just as one should not draw any similar inference from the fact that men below the age of thirty have previously sat in the Senate.
