1. Congress's enumerated military powers preempt
all state law concerning disposition of military
benefits. Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400, 1404,
1406 (2017). Where Congress has not affirmatively
granted the state authority to treat veterans' benefits
received by a non-retired, disabled service member as
"income" for purposes of support obligations to
dependents, and, in fact, excludes such benefits from
being considered as income and affirmatively protects
these benefits from "all legal and equitable process
whatever" whether "before or after receipt" by the
veteran, is Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987), which
ruled that the state could count such benefits as an
available asset for purposes of calculating a disabled
veteran's support obligations in state court divorce
proceedings, a legitimate basis for the State of
Michigan to usurp the Supremacy Clause and, in
direct conflict with positive federal law, order
Petitioner, a non-retired, disabled veteran to include
these monies as "income" available for purposes of
calculating his child support obligations?

2. Where, after Rose, supra, Congress gave the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs exclusive jurisdiction to
"decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a
decision" affecting "the provision of benefits...to
veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans,"
see 38 U.S.C. § 511 (emphasis added); and, "as to any
such question" made such decisions "final and
conclusive" and unreviewable "by any other official or
by any court," id. (emphasis added); and created an
Article I Court in the Veterans Judicial Review Act
(VJRA), Pub. L. No. 100-687, 102 Stat. 4105, for
exclusive appellate review of such decisions, does a
state court have jurisdiction or authority to directly or
indirectly order a disposition of these benefits in a
manner contrary to the initial benefit determination?

Congress's-military-powers-preempt-state-law-on-veterans-benefits