What Obama Could Have Done Instead of Berating His Voters: Suspend DADT

[t0dd]

President Obama has, for some reason, taken time off from his busy schedule to berate his own supporters for “taking their ball and going home.” What is a far more productive thing that Obama could have done with those ten minutes? He could have used his power as Commander in Chief to suspend discharges related to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” effectively ending a horribly discriminatory practice with the stroke of a pen.

Three benefits would pretty much instantly accrue from this much better use of Obama’s time: One, he could reclaim the moral high ground on this issue because ending DADT is clearly the right and moral thing to do. Two, it would save the government the cost of training replacements for all the perfectly capable servicemen and servicewomen unnecessarily fired. And three, it would actually help excite the Democratic base–at least it would do a better job at that than calling the regular Americans who volunteered for Obama’s ‘08 campaign unserious because they are unhappy with broken promises, secret deals with corporate lobbyists, and 9.5 percent unemployment.

I was more willing than many to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he held off suspending DADT as he tried to work with Republicans to do it the “right way” through legislation. Well, as I should have expected, that attempt at bipartisan outreach failed miserably, and Senate Republicans chose to simply obstruct. That makes now the perfect time for Obama to exercise his power and suspend DADT discharges as promised. The American people support it, the base would be excited by it, and it would be a way to draw attention the radical, underhanded nature of the Republican Party.

...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/09/30/what-obama-could-have-done-instead-of-berating-his-voters-suspend-dadt/

How Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order

Prior to the release of Palm's study, many had argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”

There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says. First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation” Under the law “the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States” during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”

The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense… in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation." Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members “if” a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the “authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made.”

Diane H. Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law and another study co-author, said the presidential authority to stop firing gay troops, known as “stop-loss,” is different from the highly unpopular stop-loss policy that the Army recently announced it would phase out. “That use of stop-loss forcibly extends service by those who wish to leave the military,” she said, “whereas suspending discharges for homosexuality would do the opposite: allow ongoing service by those who wish to remain in uniform.” The study says the provisions of the stop-loss law, which are granted by Congress, are “sensible because they give the President authority to suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained personnel requirements.”

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

[TheWraith]

1. And once again, we have to explain...

DADT is statute law. That means it's part of the laws of the United States. It's no more legal for Obama to order the military to ignore it than it was legal for Bush to order the military to ignore the laws against torture. It's FEDERAL LAW. To get rid of it, it needs to be repealed. You can change the administrative criteria for enforcing it, which Obama HAS DONE, but you can't repeal it by fiat.

And furthermore, claiming that they're "unhappy with broken promises" is pretty nonsensical when any fact-checking website will tell you Obama's record on doing what he said he would is excellent.

[sharp_stick]

3. This response needs to be written down

so it can be CTRL-C / CTRL-V pasted. I'm surprised how often this has to be repeated.

[t0dd]

5. Sorry. I'll trust military law experts over your lame explanation. thx

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says. First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation” Under the law “the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States” during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”

The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense… in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation." Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members “if” a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the “authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made.”

Diane H. Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law and another study co-author, said the presidential authority to stop firing gay troops, known as “stop-loss,” is different from the highly unpopular stop-loss policy that the Army recently announced it would phase out. “That use of stop-loss forcibly extends service by those who wish to leave the military,” she said, “whereas suspending discharges for homosexuality would do the opposite: allow ongoing service by those who wish to remain in uniform.” The study says the provisions of the stop-loss law, which are granted by Congress, are “sensible because they give the President authority to suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained personnel requirements.”

[msanthrope]

9. Military law experts? Try social scientists--they don't have a single military law expert on staff.

Not for anything, but last year, when actual military law experts at the Serviceperson's Legal Defense network pointed out to the legal geniuses at The Palm Center that stop-loss specifically excludes "homosexuality," this study was very quietly discarded....

So Aaron Belkin, a Poli Sci teacher, and lead author of the Palm Report study, now supports repeal....

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/palm-center-director-aaron-belkin-fights-back-against-lgbt-critics-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-comp.html


This study has been discredited more times than I can count--it's why the SLDN supports repeal.

[t0dd]

14. Did Obama have to tell his DOJ to defend the constitutionality of DADT too?

How come President Harry Truman was able to issue Executive Order No. 9981 to provide full integration of African Americans in the armed services, but Obama's hands are tied? I don't believe it. This administration, as it has shown time and time again, is no friend to the LGBT community.

[msanthrope]

16. I shall explain this, yet again.

The reason Truman could do an EO was because segregation was military POLICY. NOT a law. So an EO covered it.

Here, DADT is a LAW. EOs do not override laws. Read the "Youngstown" case to understand why.

Here, because you have a law, with an inimical finding, you need a repeal, and survival of judicial review.

This is basic, separation of powers theory.

[t0dd]

19. 10 United States Code § 12305

"Notwithstanding ANY other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, THE PRESIDENT MAY SUSPEND ANY PROVISION OF LAW relating to promotion, retirement, OR SEPARATION applicable to ANY member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States."

Where is the "EXCEPT HOMOSEXUALS." clause?

[msanthrope]

21. That isn't DADT. That's the stop-loss statute,

Of course, stop-loss specifically excludes things like, "pregnancy" and "homosexuality" and 8 other states of being.

Tice, Jim, “Stop-Loss Extends to All on Active Duty,” Army Times, February 25,
1991: 16. Those not covered by stop-loss include “soldiers eligible for disability retirement or separation, dependency,
hardship, pregnancy, misconduct, punitive actions, unsatisfactory performance and homosexuality."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40782.pdf

[t0dd]

24. Where is that provision in the law?

That is nothing more than a quote from a CRS report. Where is it in the statue? Why does the President have to listen to that report?

[msanthrope]

32. You were given the link.

It should be hotlinked to footnote 35. If it is not, scroll to the section, read the discussion at cite 35 on stop-loss.

Note that this paper, unlike yours, was written by an actual military law expert.

Now, if you really want to argue that pregnant women are subject to stop-loss, then you are going to have to cite that.

[t0dd]

40. Again, it is nowhere in the actual statue.

That is a quote from CRS. He is referencing a report. There is NO PROVISION IN STOP LOSS that says the President can only order Stop Loss for STRAIGHT people or a STOP LOSS that specifically excludes gay people. Try saying that out loud a few times to get it through your head.

[msanthrope]

43. You are right. Pregnant women aren't exempt. Neither are felons. Amputees on disability.

Hardship separations? Nah!!! They are all fighting in Afghanistan.....

You really should call the Serviceperson's Legal Defense Network and tell them that because you couldn't find it in the statute, they are wrong, and should press Obama for an EO, because you say it can be done.

And maybe somebody patient there will explain to you that our entire American legal system is based on the laws on the books and their interpretation through cases, regulations, and directives. and that federal statutes must ALWAYS conform to the Constitution.



And then maybe they will patiently explain to you that under Article 8, section 1, the CONGRESS, NOT THE PRESIDENT sets the terms and conditions for military service---

and that under that Constitutional authority, section 12305 does not work around section 10 USC 654.

In other words, you know that section of 12305 you keep quoting---the "Notwithstanding ANY other provision of law?"

Well, guess what the "other provision of law" is that 12305 is "notwithstanding?"

It's 10 uSC 654. (and others)

Where the Congress finds, per statute, that gay people are inimical to the service.

And guess what???? Stop-loss doesn't override the powers granted to the Congress in Article 8, section 1. Neither does an EO.



Now, I've tried to be nice, and give you hints, and suggest, politely, that you READ THE DADT statute and figure out for yourself why 12305 doesn't apply, but there you are. I even gave you a report written by an actual military law expert that explains it.

If you have a way that explains how a federal statute overrides the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution, please tell us. Heck, you still haven't explained to me how an EO overrides a statute of Congress, either.

[msanthrope]

29. Already gave you the link upthread.

I'm sorry if you don't believe the link.

[msanthrope]

36. Do you realize you aren't even quoting the right statute?

Try the DADT statute.

[t0dd]

15. Why can't he suspend the policy until the end of his presidency?

The president can issue an order to halt enforcement of the policy. It is temporary, but he DOES have the power to do that. Stop spinning and show me facts otherwise.

[msanthrope]

17. Quote that provision.

Seriously. Quote it.


It doesn't exist.

FYI--DADT is a law--which means you must have another law. Policy can be changed by EO. Not laws.

[boston bean]

46. So change the damned policy and let the law follow.

[msanthrope]

47. How?

How does the President suspend a law of Congress?

It's not merely a policy, like segregation of the armed forces. It's a law.

[boston bean]

48. I'm not asking to suspend a law. I'm asking him to change a policy where he writes

and EO stop lossing these brave Americans.

[msanthrope]

50. Yes--that is EXACTLY what you are asking him to do! DADT is a LAW.

The provisions of DADT provide a basis for policy, but they are laws--EOs don't override them.

Really and truly.

[boston bean]

52. really, then why is bush's "conscience rule" still in effect.

isn't there a law somewhere out there, please tell me there is, that women have a right to medical treatment?

[msanthrope]

55. Dude. It's not. Obama knocked that fucker out in the first 100 days.

"The administration revoked the Bush-era "Provider Conscience" rule that created more regulations to prevent those who refuse to hire doctors and nurses opposed to abortion rights from receiving federal funds. The move was applauded by abortion rights advocacy groups, who say the limits restricted patients' rights."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Obama100days/story?id=7042171&page=1

Maybe--just maybe, you should stop Obama-bashing long enough to actually pay attention.

FYI--that was a rule change knocking out a rule change--both Executive Branch functions. No conflict.

[boston bean]

58. You are WRONG and the article you post is wrong.

Religious Doctors can Still Deny Women Reproductive Health Care(July 14, 2010) in Health / Women's Health


By then, many of the 11th-hour regulations undertaken by the Bush Administration -- from rules on drilling to those on endangered species -- had already been overturned by President Obama. The announcement of the provider conscience rule rescission met with some backlash from the conservative groups that initially called for the law but, at the outside, the Administration was expected to at least narrow the rule to abortion services rather than allow it to affect everything from birth control to end-of-life care.

But 30 days passed, the comment period ended… and still women wait. The Administration has yet to issue a final rule rescinding the provider conscience law more than a year after it proposed doing so. Phone calls made and emails sent to the press office and the Office on Women’s Health at the Department of Health and Human Services by the author to inquire about the status of the proposed rule went unreturned.

Most people with whom we spoke on Capitol Hill and in the reproductive rights community either didn’t know whether the repeal had been finalized, or were surprised that it had yet to be finalized. Congresswoman Lois Capps, who co-chairs the Women’s Health Task Force of the Congressional Women’s caucus and sponsored the Capps Amendment to the health care reform bill that was eventually cast aside in favor of the severely restrictive Stupak Amendment, had this to say.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religious-doctors-can-still-deny-women-reproductive-health-care

You get your damned facts straight before you go hurling accusations around about peoples motives.

[msanthrope]

61. You quoted an amazingly stupid author. Actually, an unsigned internet opinion.

As ABC News and NPR detailed at the time, Obama suspended all the midnight rules--including the changes made in the EPA, by issuance of a memo that suspended all rules passed in the 60 days before Jan 20 'for review.' Some rules were later freed. Others, like the abortion conscience rules (passed Dec. 19) and the EPA rules were suspended in their entirety, 'pending new comment periods.'

http://www.theittlist.com/site/ittlist/ind/5327/

See also,

What is the Obama Agenda for Bush-Era Regulations?
Posted on January 28, 2009

Just hours after President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, new White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel issued a memo setting out the Obama administration's policy for dealing with some regulations left by the administration of President George W. Bush. The Emanuel memo puts a freeze on all regulations still in the pipeline and gives agencies leeway to deal with those Bush-era regulations already finalized but not yet being implemented.
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/9643


That means the conscience rule, that never went into effect, is never going into effect under Obama. Which is something that your author was too stupid to figure out....

The old rule remains, and that's what will be followed.

That also means that Obama gets what he wants without a fight.--and without a lengthy new rules and review period that only takes time away from HHS....

it's described here:

"A Third Fix
But there is a third fix, which Obama has already promised: canceling the rule.

To do this, Anne Joseph O'Connell, an assistant law professor and expert in agency regulations at University of California, Berkeley, said Obama could issue a memorandum to federal agencies ordering the suspension of any regulations that have yet to take effect. This would include the conscience rule and other rules finalized 60 days before Jan. 20.

O'Connell said that while suspended rules are supposed to be revisited by the next administration, they rarely are."

http://www.womensenews.org/story/the-nation/081223/bush-era-regs-form-undo-wish-list-2009




And if a republican is elected, then they get to do the same machinations. Which they would do anyway, to any rules that Obama had passed.

So women are exactly where they were BEFORE Bush promulgated the rule change...

but again--this is Executive Branch stuff. Where's the conflict that has anything to do with repeal of DADT?

[boston bean]

62. He did not overturn the Conscience Rule. He ordered a thirty day review

and it sat there after that. All those articles you quote assume he will do it.

Do you suppose Lois Capps doesn't know WTF she is talking about.

[msanthrope]

64. As stated, suspension works the same as overturn, without a lengthy

process. There's more than one way to skin that cat. In fact, a new administration will have to restart the process entirely.

As for Lois Capps--are you serious? This is the ASSHOLE who offered an amendment that went beyond Hyde and Weldon to:

"My amendment ensures that no doctor or hospital or even insurance plan can be required to participate in providing or covering abortion services. In fact, my amendment goes beyond current law in this regard. Currently, existing statute known as the "Weldon Amendment" prohibits the government from discriminating against health providers and insurance companies who refuse to perform or pay for abortions. My amendment extends that to ensure that no private insurance plan operating in the Exchange may discriminate against health providers who refuse to perform abortions."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/09/16/the-truth-about-capps-amendment

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_capps_1.pdf

Seriously, Lois Capps? That's who you pull out? The one that advocated we give a pass to providers who refuse to perform abortions by allowing them get public monies in the Exchange???? Yeah, right. Now, I'm supposed to take what she has to say about the conscience clause seriously, or suppose she knows what she's talking about?

*************************

But again, and this is the question you keep avoiding as you change the subject from DADT to the Conscience Rule--tell me what this has to do with DADT?

Anything???

Or are you just changing the subject to Obama-bash?

[boston bean]

65. Nothing changed. It was not suspended. Nothing has changed

as a matter of fact, I called my congressmans office and it is still in effect.

You ought to get your facts straight.

[msanthrope]

68. Sure you did. Did you ask your congressperson when they are going to repeal DADT? n/t

[boston bean]

70. You call him, I'm sure they'll be able to help you figure it out.

Jim McGoverns office Phone: [phone]

[msanthrope]

73. What did he tell you about repealing DADT?

And did you tell him your theory, that the conscience rule and DADT are somehow linked?

[boston bean]

75. Oh you are such an intellectual. You show me where I said DADT

and the conscience rule were linked?

I was comparing EO's and what they are used for.

But I guess an argument could be made that one EO could be used to give more rights, while one takes them away.

[msanthrope]

78. Dude. The entire thread is about DADT.

You are the one who brought up the conscicence rule--which, by the way, you do realize, has nothing to do with EO's, right?

Which is why I pointed out the Executive memo mechanism to you. Which is why the policy is suspended.

[boston bean]

80. The policy is not suspended. A thirty day comment period was declared

that is all. The Conscience rule is still in tact.

You are wrong about this.

[msanthrope]

82. Again, if you don't believe me, fine. But what does this have to do with DADT?

Okay, you and I have very different viewpoints on what happened with regard to the Conscience Rule.

I don't particularly care if you don;t find my cites persuasive.

So back to the original point--what the hell does the Conscience rule have to do with DADT?

[boston bean]

84. It's not a question of believing you, it's a matter of fact.

You go back and find out where I answered this for you already and answer my questions.

But just in case your a slow reader:

I don't have an answer to it because I never said they explicitly depended on one another. I was talking about EO's and what they are used for.

[msanthrope]

86. Again, what, precisely, is your point about EO's and DADT and the Conscience Rule?

(Since neither the CR or DADT involve an EO, BTW.)

[boston bean]

88. really bush's last minute Conscience Rule wasn't an EO?

[msanthrope]

89. No. Jeebus H. Christ. Don't you read what you friggen' post?

The Conscience Rule is an HHS rule/regulation.

Thus, implementation of the fucker was suspended by an Executive Memo sleight-of-hand...read my links.

An EO doesn't overturn a regulation. That's why the memo was used.

The regulation, my friend, is in limbo. And will stay there.


On edit--what does an HHS rule/reg have to do with DADT?

[boston bean]

91. it has not in limbo, It is still in effect. Jessum H Christmas!

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/04/whatever-happened-to-rescinding-that-conscience-rule/

Whatever Happened to Rescinding that Conscience Rule?

The thing of it is, I'm pretty sure the Obama administration never followed through and rescinded the "conscience rule," as it's known. Sure, White House officials announced last February that they intended to repeal the expanded conscience exception for health care workers that George W. Bush's HHS put in place during his last month in office. HHS even held a 30-day public comment period on the proposed change and was inundated with appeals from both sides. And Obama mentioned the rule in his commencement address at Notre Dame, suggesting that he would prefer not to repeal but to revise the rule: "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause."

But as far as I can tell, that Bush conscience rule is still on the books and hasn't been changed. I suspect that as with Obama's campaign pledge to repeal the Bush executive order allowing faith-based groups that receive federal funds to discriminate in hiring, the White House quickly learned that some of its allies in the religious community liked the conscience rule and didn't want to see it taken away. So they apparently decided to lay low and hold off on making any changes. What's surprising is that they've gotten away with it so far without vocal protests from the choice community.

[msanthrope]

92. Okay, so neither you, nor the religion blogger from TIME can understand this?

From your link--

"What's surprising is that they've gotten away with it so far without vocal protests from the choice community."

No, what is unsurprising is that the vast majority of the women in the choice community are able to comprehend what Obama did...suspend the rule using the EM, call for a new comment period, and then, let it die....where it is in limbo.

and I don't expect TIME's blogger on religion to get that.....you do realize that Amy Sullivan is a self-described evangelical, which is why she has no idea what the "choice community" thinks?


Look--you've just gone most of whole thread NOT UNDERSTANDING that you weren't dealing with an EO. Have you considered that you are also NOT UNDERSTANDING what has been patiently explained to you?


NOW--do you think you can answer what the hell an HHS regulation has to do with DADT? Because you did bring this up in a thread about DADT.

[boston bean]

93. no, the conscience rule is in effect. You say it's in some limbo, it is not.

Please call your congress person. I have given you ample evidence. I have also called my congress person. Get back with me when you do the necessary homework and show me an article dated after the 30 day comment period that the conscience rule is not still intact.

As far as an executive order is concerned, I was under the impression the conscience rule was one, that was an error.

However, if you don't mind obama undoing a regulation with sleight of hand, which he hasn't btw, what makes you think an EO can't alleviate the loss of good soldiers from the military? I understand it is legislation, but the point still remains, that Bush's EO's were clarification of laws and pretty much new laws to legislation he didn't like or want to follow.

There is a righteous reason to use that power and Obama should use it for DADT.

[msanthrope]

95. You've gone an entire thread not understanding that the CR is not an EO, but I'm supposed to

prove something ELSE to you?

I have.

I don't think you comprehend it. Let me explain to you why I think that--

You wrote--

"However, if you don't mind obama undoing a regulation with sleight of hand, which he hasn't btw, what makes you think an EO can't alleviate the loss of good soldiers from the military? I understand it is legislation, but the point still remains, that Bush's EO's were clarification of laws and pretty much new laws to legislation he didn't like or want to follow."

In a single paragraph, you've managed to conflate legislation, EOs, sigining statements, and rules and regs. You seem to have no idea that you are talking about different branches of government, and what that means.

An EO does not override a statute of Congress.
DADT is a statute of Congress.
Therefore, an EO would not override DADT.

You also wrote:

"As far as an executive order is concerned, I was under the impression the conscience rule was one, that was an error."

Since you now admit you don't know the nature of the thing you wrote on, can you contemplate that you are also in error about what was done to neutralize it?

[boston bean]

96. No, I will admit no such thing. Did the HHS come up with this regulation all on it's own

or did someone order it?

[msanthrope]

99. Since you are the one who brought up the CR, don't you think it behooves you to know what it is? n/

[boston bean]

66. You resort to name calling and deflect with what you think aren't sources

what about the facts?

You said he took care of that in his first 100 days.

He did NOT. The rule is still in effect.

[msanthrope]

67. Yes, he did. And, you STILL KEEP AVOIDING my question. What's this to do with DADT?

And yes, I will call Lois Capps an asshole for offering to extend Hyde and Weldon for the Repukes.

You and I may have to agree to disagree on the Conscience Rule...but what about DADT???

AGAIN--WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH DADT?

[boston bean]

69. He did NOT suspend or revoke or end the Conscience Rule.

I don't give one care what you think about Lois Capps. That has nothing to do with this except she confirms the Conscience rule is still intact.

You said something false. I was correcting you and you pulled out every trick in the book to try and make it seem as though I was the one peddling false information and hurling accusations.

You owe me an apology for that.

Now if you want to get back to my original question, which is why EO's are written, to skirt around laws already on the books, we can go back to that, once you finally admit that you were WRONG and apologize for attributing motivations that are false.

[msanthrope]

71. Again, what does your Conscience Rule ranting have to do with DADT?

You and I will have to agree to disagree on that.

So, AGAIN--what does your Conscience Rule ranting have to do with DADT? After all, you were the one who brought up the Conscience Rule in the first place?

[boston bean]

72. No we will not just have to disagree on that. You are wrong.

Secondly, I guess you didn't read my response.

[msanthrope]

74. Yes. We will just have to disagree. And I read your response. You're still avoiding the question.

Again, explain to me precisely what you seem to think the Conscience Rule has to do with DADT?

If you can't, then just admit it.

[boston bean]

77. You prove to me where the Conscience Rule has been overturned, suspended or revoked.

You cannot do that. Did you call mcgoverns and get the facts straight?

Don't you demand one more answer from me until you finally acknowledge that you are wrong!

psssttt no matter how you try to twist and frame this debate you are WRONG.

and you might want to take the time to read my responses instead of just demanding something from me that I have already answered.

[msanthrope]

79. I did. If you don't care to believe me, then don't. No skin off my nose.

But again--how, precisely, are the conscience rule and DADT linked????

Maybe you could stop the bluster, and answer the question?

[boston bean]

81. Show me an article that Obama overturned and suspended the Conscience Rule

after the 30 day comment period.

As to you other question, I suggest again, that you read all of my responses, every word of them and you might get a clue as to how I answered your repetitive demand.

[msanthrope]

83. Again, if you don't believe me, fine. But what does this have to do with DADT?

You are the one who brought up the Conscience Rule.

What does it have to do with DADT?

[boston bean]

85. Read my multiple replies to you. Have you even read my responses

Are your responses a cut and paste job, so you can try to make it look like you weren't wrong?

You need another tactic.

[msanthrope]

87. Again, what, precisely is your point about the Conscience Rule, DADT, and EO?

Since, neither the CR or DADT involve an EO, perhaps you ought to make it clear?

On edit--I note, given your responses upthread, that you seem to think the Conscience Rule was an EO.

Fail.

Go back and read what you posted, and understand that the CR was not an EO, realize what it was, and then read my links explaining how the administration put it in limbo. Where it will stay.

[boston bean]

94. Read my response above and stop cutting and pasting your responses.

Will you give me a freakin minute to answer.

Did Bush send an EO to get conscience rules in place?

[msanthrope]

97. 1) You are the one who decided to split this sub-thread with multiple answers to my post #64.

Again, in both splits you've failed to answer the basic question---what does CR have to do with DADT?

2) If I can keep up, so can you.

3) No. If you cannot comprehend the nature of the CR (which was explained in what YOU POSTED) then why can;t you accept the possibility that you have absolutely no idea what was done to neutralize it?

[boston bean]

100. Because I've have read and researched and took what you had to say into consideration

and what you are saying is false!

I even called my congressmans office. The conscience rule remains intact. Call your congressperson and ask them I am sure you will receive the same answer.

[msanthrope]

103. You didn't know what the CR was. For all your research, you missed the fundamental fact of what it

was.


Now, I have no doubt that your Congressperson's poorly paid legislative aide had a delightful time speaking with you. I can only imagine the conversation, given your postings, here.

Further, you still haven;t answered my question--why, precisely, do you think that the CR and DADT are in any way related?

[SidDithers]

98. Good posts in this thread...

thanks for explaining things so clearly.

Sid

[msanthrope]

104. Thank you. n/t

[Renew Deal]

34. Because DADT will never be repealed if he does that.

Congresspeople will not see it as worth dealing with since the president took the burden.

[COLGATE4]

27. How do you read that to say that Belkin "supports repeal". What

he says is that it would be better to give future members of the armed forces certainty under the law, but at the same time issuing regulatory repeal is very hard for any future administrations to undo. He may prefer repeal, but doesn't say that it's the only way.

[MineralMan]

20. Name one military law expert at that organization.

Just one. I'll wait...

[MineralMan]

22. From the old (May 2009) pdf file linked to in your OP:

Contributors

Dr. Aaron Belkin is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm
Center, University of California Santa, Barbara.
Dr. Nathaniel Frank is Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center, University of
California Santa Barbara.
Dr. Gregory M. Herek is Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis.
Dr. Elizabeth L. Hillman, J.D., is Professor of Law at the University of California
Hastings College of the Law and a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.
Diane H. Mazur, J.D., is Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law
and a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.
Bridget J. Wilson, J.D., practices law at Rosenstein Wilson & Dean in San Diego and is a
veteran of the U.S. Army Reserve.

Being a veteran does not an expert in military law make. I'm a veteran of the USAF, but I'm not an expert on military aircraft or military law.

Show me your experts and tell me me what makes them experts.

[COLGATE4]

28. You're also not a lawyer or a Professor of Law. You don't have

to be a military lawyer to opine on military law. Federal statutes are Federal statutes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Rah! Rah! Sis Boom Bah!

Humbug.

[JNelson6563]

35. Fuck those facts!

[alarimer]

109. No, he CAN order them to stop fucking enforcing it.

They can simply stop doing anything about it.

Obama's record is abysmal on civil rights: secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, etc. In many ways his use of the "state secrets" bullshit is worse than Bush's.

[TheWraith]

110. And that would be illegal, like Bush ordering torture.

It is not legal for the President to order the military to ignore federal law. ANY law. Period. It doesn't matter whether we agree with the law or not.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. What FDL could have done to maintain any shred of credibility: Not align with Grover Norquist.

[pgodbold]

4. I completely agree and sometimes I think Captain Bipartisan could use a little adult supervision. nt

[Spazito]

6. Geez, you would think the owners of FDL would be too embarrassed to publish...

crap like this which shows the total lack of understanding/knowledge of the Constitution, the role of Congress, why bills passed by Congress have to be repealed by Congress but it seems ignorance is bliss when convenient and FDL finds it convenient all too often.

[msanthrope]

11. It's lead author is a Poli Sci teacher, not a lawyer--

The Palm Center quietly backed off this report last year when the Serviceperson's Legal Defense Network pointed out that stop-loss specifically excludes "homosexuality."

[Spazito]

13. Yep, FDL doesn't care about the facts, the reality...

the law, the accuracy of their 'contributors', their focus is solely on ensuring their 'contribution' is suitably anti-Obama, imo.

[msanthrope]

18. They know this study isn't supported by the SLDN--but they have to score anti-Obama

points.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. To so just to mollify elements...

...of his party's electoral coalition would be an impeachable offense.

He would be using a power he has only because he is the president -- the high in high crime -- to circumvent statute, in the presence of an emergency only in an on-paper sense, in a transparent attempt to goose the Democrats at the polls.

You'd have impeached Bush -- given the composition of the House, called without effect for the impeachment of Bush -- for something similar.

[OregonBlue]

8. FDL? Really? I should believe anything that comes from an Obama hate site? I don't even need to read

it to know what it says, "it's all Obama's fault, Obama is the same as Bush" yada, yada, yada.

[msanthrope]

12. Yes--using a discredited study to attack Obama--who would have thunk it? n/t

[DevonRex]

23. FDL is trash written by scum. Dem-hating scum. nt

[MineralMan]

25. This FDL post is based on a report issued by that organization

in May of 2009. It's since been withdrawn by that organization. For pete's sake. It's old stuff.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. The OP here posts the Palm Center link

Fire Dog Lake does not. It seems the OP is posting the withdrawn report. You claim this other website did. I checked and they did not.

[BlueCheese]

26. As of this moment...

The FDL post does not have a link to the Palm Center release. I don't know if it was there before.

Did anyone here go to FDL to check if it was there? It would seem to be a reasonable step to take before heaping criticizing FDL for posting it.

[VMI Dem]

31. The Log Cabin Republicans are doing the heavy lifting for him.

He has better shit to do.

[msanthrope]

38. The LCR only sued for their own members. Obama supports repeal for all. He is doing the heavy

lifting.

I suggest you check out the caption of the LCR suit--they sued for themselves, and not on behalf of all gays, or even all gay servicepeople.

Obama supports repeal for all.

[Bluebear]

45. "He is doing the heavy lifting" - LOL

[dsc]

76. you are being quite disingenuous there

after their win they explicitly argued that there should be a nation wide injunction covering any gays who are now or want to be service members. yes, they did choose their clients as is their right, but they are surely not just suing to have gay republicans serve.

[msanthrope]

105. no--they are. Since they know damn well that they have no right

to extend associational standing.

They were lazy, and now expect to reap benefits they didn't fight for.

[dsc]

108. that is absurd

If they win their case then the government can't say well we lost here but every other person is still screwed. When we litigated prop 8 we had to specific couples as plaintiffs but if we win the who state of California, not just those 2 couples, will have the right to marry.

[msanthrope]

111. You might wanna check on that....

the LCR sued on behalf of its membership,and its membership alone. In Prop 8, specific couples sued on behalf of themselves, and those similarly situated.

That's why the LCR are now telling the judge that she should EXPAND the parties this applies to--that's the reason they needed to file the injunctive request they did. If they HAD sued on behalf of people outside their membership, and won, expanding standing wouldn't be an issue.

This is protective---let's say the LCR had lost. If they had lost, should the ruling apply to ALL gay people? Or just the LCR membership, since that was the only party in interest on the Plaintiff's side? That would be improper collateral estoppel, wouldn't it?

[Renew Deal]

33. Anything Obama does by executive order can be reveresed by executive order.

DADT needs to be changed once and for all.

[The Philosopher]

37. I think he can do it

Article Two, Section Three gives the President power to suspend laws. If the President is charged with seeing laws are faithfully executed, he can suspend laws, I would believe, that are unfaithful. What happens then, I don't know. I'd hope he could ask the DOJ to sue the constitutionality of a law, or even argue that DADT contradicts itself (which it does).

[msanthrope]

39. Duzy!!! Welcome to DU!!! n/t

[treestar]

41. That would be acting like a dictator

You don't have to like the laws. But the POTUS has to enforce the laws there are.

[The Philosopher]

44. It'd only be a dictatorship

If Congress and the Judiciary didn't respond. Each branch acts as a check to the other. Saying that one branch suspends law and thus is a dictatorship is saying that we live under a dictatorship because Congress is supposed to make laws.

[msanthrope]

49. I have to admit that I am simply enchanted by your stream-of-consciousness

interpretation of the separation of powers.

I hope you will be here for a long time, because providing comic relief while discussing executive fiat is difficult to do, and ought to be appreciated.

[Mimosa]

53. Msanthrope, if not for your posts I would feel I'd wasted time in this topic. n/t

[msanthrope]

56. Thank you. n/t

[The Philosopher]

57. I'm sorry I didn't provide notes on a forum

I'll try to avoid being a target of insults in the future. Thank you.

[Mimosa]

51. What a great precedent it would be for a Prez to start suspending laws. NOT. n/t

[The Philosopher]

59. There is, actually.

Although it has been hotly debated each time.

[depakid]

60. "the President is charged with seeing laws are faithfully executed"

Well, if there's one thing this administration has shown with the banksters, fraudsters, torturers, wiretappers, food poisoners, mining companies, corrupt public officials, etc., it's dogged investigation, pursuit and prosecution under federal law!

Shouldn't need this but:

:sarcasm:

[Starry Messenger]

42. k & r

[DireStrike]

54. Or even TALK about WHY he won't do anything about it.

The excuse I hear is "Oh, it would be an abuse of power/not in keeping with the proper use of the executive branch."

Yeah? Well that ain't what the conservatives will say. "Even OBAMA didn't support that, and he was a KENYAN COMMUNIST!"

He hasn't said anything like that has he? He almost never comes out definitively for anything. Why are we supposed to believe he wants to pass things he won't even talk about in the positive unless he's campaigning?

[TexasObserver]

63. recommend

[Touchdown]

90. Exactly. Of course the "Once again..." people will never get it.

Bush/Cheney left Obama with unprecedented power. The Unitary executive is still in place. None of it has been removed for the betterment of the country or the democracy. He CAN legally do this, but he doesn't want to because he doesn't care.

[SidDithers]

101. ...

Sid

[VMI Dem]

102. Chill the fuck out. The Log Cabin Republicans have got this.

:shrug:

[msanthrope]

106. except that they only sued on behalf of their own membership. n/t

[defendandprotect]

107. Absolutely ....!!! DADT was a vicious attack on homosexuals by homophobes in government ....

and is entirely discordant with our alleged values of equality and Separation of

Church and State --

It's even sadder when we recall that Obama also does not support gay marriage!

"Time for change," President Obama!!