POTUS should ban firings based on DADT on the basis of National Security

[Trocadero]

[Ken Burch]

1. Absolutely.

But someone will show up in this thread to argue vehemently that he couldn't POSSIBLY do such a thing.

They'll probably be saying that the swing voters(who no longer support DADT and are rapidly abandoning their opposition to ssm, btw)
want to keep gay servicemembers living at the mercy of their straight colleagues for as long as possible.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. We really loved it when Bush blatantly violated law for National Security.

So, why not.

[Zenlitened]

5. What law would be violated?

Doesn't DADT itself include a provision for suspending discharges?

[Ozymanithrax]

12. DADT is a law.

But since it is a law we don't like, I suppose that is OK.

I agree that DADT is unjust and quite probably unconstitutional, but simply allowing the President the power to just not follow the law isn't the right thing either. Each branch of government is supposed to have limits.

[Zenlitened]

14. But the law itself includes a provision that gives the CIC discretion, no?

How could exercising that discretion then be a violation of the self-same law?

[Tesha]

3. He should. He won't. (NT)

[USArmyParatrooper]

4. I disagree, and here's why

Suspending discharges is nothing more than a temporary band-aid. And just suppose the Republicans manage to successfully block the repeal of DADT to the bitter end? What happens to them if the Republicans takeover the Whitehouse?

DADT needs to be repealed outright, and it's being hindered by the Republican's plan of block everything. It's working brilliantly because the more they block, the more Obama gets heat from his own base. We need to adjust fire and put the heat back on them. Until that happens the Republicans will continue being the puppeteers.

[FreeState]

6. We need a temporary bandaid NOW - families are losing their careers TODAY n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

7. You're not looking at the big picture.

What about the untold thousands of gays who choose to serve even under the discriminatory law? What happens to those who come out due to the band-aid when a Republican becomes President?

[dsc]

8. nothing different than if the repeal happened

the repeal isn't being replaced with a right for gay people to serve, it is being replaced with whatever the military under Obama comes up with, which presumedly could be removed by a GOP President.

[ruggerson]

13. no one ever seems to pay attention to that

the "compromise" REMOVED non-discrimination language from the legislation.

When/if the repeal happens, the new rules will simply be regulations, not statute.

[FreeState]

9. Im not advocating for stopping the push to change the law - just stopping the firings NOW

you dont have to do just one. Obama should stop the firings now and the Senate should pass the funding bill.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

10. Rachel did a good piece on this with VP Biden

Biden's claim is that they had to continue the current policy in order to get the votes they needed to kill DADT.

PSYCHE!

[rucky]

11. If they can stop-loss, they can ignore DADT, too.

[mdmc]

15. ..