Similar for the fourth amendment. There are exceptions for civilians, and a different set of exceptions for military members, based on government need.
The Constitution applies to all US citizens, military or not.
So are military courts going to close down since we’ve now ended the Afghanistan war? Or is that comma before “militia” going to mean that the time of war phrase is on for people who in a militia?
Whether or not we're in a time of public danger is definitely up for debate, but you can't just leave off the second condition in an or statement and pretend it doesn't exist when trying to claim the statement is false.
Findlaw (usually reasonably accurate) claims that is the case
> The protection of indictment by grand jury extends to all persons except those serving in the armed forces. All persons in the regular armed forces are subject to court martial rather than grand jury indictment or trial by jury.33 The exception’s limiting words when in actual service in time of war or public danger apply only to members of the militia, not to members of the regular armed forces.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation01.htm...
During wartime disobeying a direct order is a serious offense (probably one of the most ‘infamous’ of offenses) but during peacetime you get to have a trial and more than likely not be shot.
The closest thing that's true is this: Constitutional rights are always weighed against some government interest, and there's a lot of deference to the military with regard to government interest. So there may be things on the margins which are unconstitutional in every or nearly every civilian case, but are constitutional in the context of the government's interest in national defense.
However, those rights still exist, and courts must still address those issues through the appropriate balancing test.
EDIT: A cornerstone case to read, for those interested, is Parker v. Levy: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/
