Congress advised it has authority to undo any transgender military ban

[highplainsdem]

Source: Politico

If President Donald Trump follows through on his declaration to ban all transgender military personnel, Congress could delay or even undo it, according to a new analysis from the legislative branch's research arm.

-snip-

Transgender individuals were permitted to serve openly a year ago, while the Pentagon took a year to study how to begin accommodating new recruits, or so-called accessions. That study was recently delayed six months.

"President Trump's tweets indicate that the accession policy changes that would have allowed transgender individuals to join the military are no longer under consideration," according to the new Congressional Research Service paper, first obtained by the Federation of American Scientists. "The tweets also imply that there will be a change to the 2016 policy allowing transgender members currently in the military to continue to serve. Given this announcement, Congress may wish to consider the potential effects of the policy shift and whether to take legislative action in response."

It adds: "Congress may draft legislation to affect such Administration policy, under its authority to make laws governing the armed forces."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/28/trump-transgender-military-ban-congress-can-undo-241093

[tblue37]

1. K&R for visibility. nt

[FBaggins]

2. A dramatic oversimplification

Since the president has to sign that legislation or they need overwhelming majorities in both chambers.

[Igel]

5. Not oversimplified. Just not explicit enough to counter all objections.

It has the authority. But if you assume "simple majority" is intended, it's subject to other constraints.

No reason to think simple majority was intended. And even if it were, with a simple majority, it could even be filibustered.

Not even sure why such a claim is necessary. Don't-Ask was legislatively imposed. If you can control military policy that way, you can control it another way.

But at least it got the story right. Some have left the impression that transgendered soldiers were enlisting and this would affect a large number. That the numbers for the cost of accommodating those already enlisted = the cost for an indefinite time of accommodating all new enlistees.


I also don't think the tweet "implies" that those currently serving will be expelled. Trump speaks sloppily and imprecisely and engages in a heck of a lot--but not nearly enough--conversational repair.

What was at issue was accepting new explicitly trans enlistees. The simplest interpretation is that since that's the topic, it's the topic of the tweet. (Unless we take "implies" to mean "suggests" instead of "has as a consequence"--but that would be concern over what was intended, not what I intend, and, really, in that speech act who's more important, me or the speaker?)

Thing is, a lot of people treat close parsing in language as the norm. It is in academic and formal speech. It's something we supposedly teach in high school and college, formal and academic registers of English. Not everybody speaks that way. It creates problems when somebody who lacks that register listens to people using it, and creates problems when people who think only that register is appropriate listens to somebody not using it.

In other words, if you're listening to a rap song you don't assume it adheres to law-school levels of formality and coherence. A Shakespeare sonnet does not read like a provision in the US Code.

[Matthew28]

3. I hope they vote in veto proof majorities

To hell with this discrimination.

[shenmue]

4. Yes

[Sunlei]

6. fake(R)s, lia(R)s, c(R)ooks, f(R)audste(R)s, b(R)and of thieves.