President Obama has the authority to suspend discharges under DADT immediately.

[VMI Dem]

This can be followed shortly thereafter by an "orderly" permanent repeal by Congress.

Forget a bunch of fucking surveys. Forget getting military leadership to buy into it.

Do what you know is right Mr President.

[katandmoon]

1. K&R. But he won't do the right thing.

[frazzled]

2. That will give Congress less incentive to repeal the law

THey'll delay in the hope a Republican president will later rescind the executive order on application of the law. It's too good a wedge issue for Republicans to play in their political shenanigans.

Get this law off the books. It's wrong. And I think Obama, the constitutional scholar, understands that lasting civil liberties advances must come from sound legislative and judicial actions. He also understands that saving a small number of people from being released from the military now needs to be weighed against the more substantive issue of ensconcing real civil liberties equity in the law and the courts. I believe this will happen in the next year. THis is a man who keeps his promises.

[no limit]

9. the excuse you are making was believable before the senate struck it down anyway.

They are already delaying this. And since the democrats put this issue off until after the elections chances are it won't be repealed by congress.

[Cid_B]

3. Right....

because a plan pulled straight out of someones 5th point of contact is better than an orderly plan that takes all sides into account.

The military is not a little social experiment for everyone to play with. The bottom line is "will this increase our military power?" Its a good bet that a temporary solution jammed down the throats of Soldiers to make non-military folks feel warm and fuzzy probably wont accomplish that.

[Dappleganger]

5. Is this a joke?

I swear to fucking god that every day I have to check at the top of the board to see if this is democrat underground or not.

:mad:

[VMI Dem]

6. Sadly, no it's not.

[Dappleganger]

31. Ok, thanks.

At least I know it's not just me.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polmaven]

100. Actually, no -

Is isn't "democrat" underground. It is DemocraticUnderground.

[Erose999]

22. posted in the wrong place sorry

[Erose999]

24. Because we should cater to the homophobes and bigots in the military. I mean its perfectly OK for

the people who bear arms to protect us to be bigots and homophobes. No inherent wrongs in that at all.

:sarcasm:

[Cid_B]

26. That assumes that you absolutely must be a bigot...

... if you believe in anything other than the "magic wand" theory of repealing DADT.

[Erose999]

29. Are there any competing theories? Forgive me if I think civil rights

are not something that should be brokered and negotiated for.

[msanthrope]

33. I'd like repeal that has a chance of passing SCOTUS.

The magic wand theory of repeal will not work which is why the Serviceperson's Legal Defense Network doesn't support it.

[Orsino]

45. To argue this point effectively...

...please try removing the ancient "jammed down the throats" meme. I think it casts you in a light that is perhaps not deserved.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

73. And perhaps it is.

No, scratch the "perhaps". It is, period.

[Orsino]

92. The light that phrasing casts you in is one of severe homphobia...

...a fear that Teh Gay will get on you, and that tolerance equals participation.

Surely that's not what you meant to convey?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cid_B]

53. I'll give you a hint...

Look at my avatar...

Gee, with deductive reasoning skills like that you must have worked for CID. Feel free to send your thoughts in a PM also.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cid_B]

56. I'll give you another hint...

Being a part of the military means working in a manner that will strengthen and benefit the military. That means doing things in an orderly manner with a solid plan and not just hoping it all works out because someone is in a rush to make themselves feel good.

I have yet to see a solid plan other than "deal with it" or the ever popular "kick out anyone who doesn't like it."

When I see a solid plan I'll get on board or when I'm ordered to execute a crappy plan. ( Betting on the second one)

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orsino]

93. The solid plan is the same one we've used before...

...to integrate women and minorities--and yes, gay and lesbian troops. Most of it boils down to "deal with it," combined with sensitivity training to foster an environment in which troops learn to set aside bigotry as less important than the mission. The creed of the Army NCO begins, "No one is more professional than I." See? We've already promised ourselves that we can do this. We've done it before, and it will be done again, despite what the ignorant would have us believe.

The most solid plan of all, perhaps, is to stop embroiling the troops in endless, unwinnable war that hoses our national security rather than enhancing it. This takes away the haters' favorite excuse, that integration is impossible and even dangerous during wartime.

[USArmyParatrooper]

70. Actually that would be... the 4th point of contact

And you're right. Even IF President Obama can temporarily circumvent legislation it would be the wrong way to go about it. What happens for gays who come out when a Republican gets elected President?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

72. Did you C&P that from an anti-integration screed attacking Truman circa 1948?

That's what it looks like to me.

Seriously, everybody, read that post with that in mind. You don't even have to change any words!

[JerseygirlCT]

79. No. The bottom line is civil rights. The soldiers

do not - ever - get to decide whose civil rights they are to uphold. Were we to wait until everyone in the service was all on board, the armed forces might very well still be segregated by race.

Soldiers do what they're told to do. All the way up to the top - which is the CIC.

And minimizing civil rights with "warm and fuzzy" just exposes your bias.

[Orsino]

94. But the danger here is that our troops...

...would learn to stop hating fellow citizens, and begin to show them respect and trust. It's a short step from there to ceasing hatred of poorer, browner people who happen to live atop oil fields. You know what education leads to--the questioning of authority. Why would we take that risk?

( :sarcasm: )

[JerseygirlCT]

97. Yeah, there's that... nt

[Marr]

85. Actually, it boils down to

"is this legal" and "does the country want to do it" or not. Our nation is not designed around the goal of creating the most potent military, nor is the military some autonomous, sacrosanct, self-sufficient society. The military is just another department of our government, and it bends to the will of the nation at large.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

21. "?"

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

10. obey the constitution Obama, do not break the law

The law must change through legal channels, not through Bush era tactics.

[speppin]

11. He uses a lot of Bush era tactics and programs. One more is good in this case.

[mkultra]

15. no he doesnt and no thanks.

[no limit]

17. Yes, he does. Is rendition constitutional? How about warrentless wiretapping?

[speppin]

23. Obama Employs Bush Administration Tactic, Blocks Photos........

Here is one for starters. Goggle for more...



http://open.salon.com/blog/kevin_gosztola/2009/05/14/obama_employs_bush_administration_tactic_blocks_photos

[USArmyParatrooper]

71. How about something that isn't a blog or editorial?

[speppin]

81. LOL

[Dawgs]

12. What authority? DADT is a law. Does the Prez. really have the power to break laws?

That's a serious question, BTW.

[mkultra]

16. he can break them without recourse

meaning it rarely results in anything serious. He could commit a felony and completely avoid prosecution. The use of unconstitutional signing statements was severely abused by W. unlike most presidents, he actually used them to CHANGE the interpretation of laws rather than define the limits of his responsibilities to the law.

[no limit]

19. He is the commander in chief. One signature would stop the military from firing gays

[msanthrope]

27. completely wrong. As CIC he still has to follow the law.

DADT is a law.

Further, Article 1 section 8 isn't eclipsed by an EO.

[Erose999]

30. But he can determine to what extent that law is enforced.

[msanthrope]

34. Not quite. The DADT statute has two parts---

"Don't ask" which gives the admin some leeway in how prosecutions are started, investigated, etc...so Sec. Gates put out new rules this Spring which makes it more difficult to accuse, and investigate someone.

"Don't tell"--gives no leeway. Once a servicemember is outed, that's it. The services are compelled to discharge, since DADT finds that 'homosexuality' is inimical to the service.

That's the reason you have the survey--if you can prove that the military has moved on, i.e., the Congressional "finding" of two decades ago now doesn't apply, then you can repeal a major component of the DADT statute, and survive judicial review.

DADT is a horrible statute--it's also one that difficult to get rid of. Congress will have to clean up their own mess.

[no limit]

38. No, not completely wrong. Exactly correct as a matter of fact

it is the DoD that decides to go after gays in the military. The DoD works for the white house. As president Obama could sign an order that repeals don't ask don't tell while he is president. And if Gates refuses to follow that order he could be fired and replaced. But Gates would follow that order.

[msanthrope]

47. EO's don't override laws. DADT is a law. n/t

[no limit]

51. It will prevent gays from being discharged from the military, effectively ending DADT

atleast until the next administration.

But by all means, keep pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about instead of admitting a basic fact.

[msanthrope]

57. No--it won't. Or, explain exactly how an EO overrides a statute and describe

how this one survives judicial review?

[no limit]

60. The EO is an order to all people that work for the white house, which includes the DoD

you are acting as if this is something new, it's not.

Roosevelt issued an executive order banning racial discrimination in defense industries and the government. Truman issued an EO to allow minorities to serve in the armed forces.

Countless legal experts in the military said the president has every right to do this.

You are playing the arrogance card which is extremely disingenuous. You know as well as I do that an EO would effectively end the policy because it is the administration that discharges these people, not congress. And any judicial review would be fine with me, because by the time the court heard a case on that DADT would have long been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

[msanthrope]

62. An Eo does not override the laws of Congress.

As for both Roosevelt and Truman, they issued EO's on POLICY....not LAW....for example, there was no law passed by Congress saying that Black people could not serve. Segregation was military policy, and therefore, Truman could issue an EO on it. So you didn't have a conflict with Congress.

"Countless legal experts in the military said the president has every right to do this."

Name them.

"And any judicial review would be fine with me"

No--you want a strong case. Not an EO--see Youngstown. A TRO would be granted by the DC Circuit, and the discharges would continue.

"DADT would have long been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court."

Um, dude. I hate to tell you, but this SCOTUS has upheld DADT at every turn. The ONLY shot is repeal, which overrides the findings in the 90s law. That's the only way you get judicial deference.

[no limit]

63. Jim crow laws were actual laws preventing blacks from serving equally in the military

Here are your experts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

"Obama's current position is that Congress has exclusive authority to change the law. In May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara<56> concluded that the President can issue an Executive Order to suspend homosexual conduct discharges.<57>"

Anything else?

[msanthrope]

66. Your Wiki link doesn't work---

This is what you gave--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don/'t_ask,_don/'t_tell

1) Cite the "Jim Crow law" that Truman's EO overrode.

Here--I made it easy for you. Here's the order. Tell me which 'law' it mentions.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/9981a.htm


2) If you are referencing the Palm Center Report, please be advised that the lead author of that report is a Poli Sci teacher....not a military lw expert. Nor does the Palm Center employ a single military law expert. Also, to be fair, this Palm report was shredded by the SLDN, and posters on this website...but if that's what you want to argue, then understand that stop-loss does NOT apply to 'homosexuality.'

Do you have any citation for law other than, ahem, Wikipedia????

[no limit]

68. That is the report I am talking about. You are telling me no military lawyers were a part of it?

And this is a list of the top 10 laws Bush went around using a EO:

http://www.slate.com/id/2209225/

So what's stopping Obama?

[msanthrope]

74. Yes. The lead author is a Poli-Sci teacher....

There are some retired military on their staff, but no one who is a recognized expert in military law...which is why they mistakenly forgot to consider that 'homosexuality' is specifically excluded from stop-loss.

As for the list you gave from Slate--are you seriously suggesting that Obama behave like Bush???? Tell me which one of the Bush EOs you've cited are extant, and you wish Obama to follow.

So. You've conceded my point on EOs and Jim Crow??? Told ya'.

[no limit]

75. I conceded your point on Jim Crow, you are absolutely right, they were state laws

I was wrong on that.

But I asked you a simple question, were there no military lawyers that were a part of the report? I don't care about the staff, I'm asking if there were military lawyers that were a part of that report.

If there were and they said it would be legal for Obama to sign a EO, or even if there weren't, this issue would be in the court system for years before it would be resolved. In the mean time Dont Ask Dont Tell would not be enforced. Before it would be resolved I bet the supreme court would struck down the law long before.

You made the point Obama wouldn't do this because he shouldn't be like Bush. Obama is like Bush in many ways, too late for that. Whether it comes to warrentless wiretapping, rendition, military tribunals, or many other issues. If he doesn't care about the law (as is clearly the case) he might as well issue an EO banning DADT and let the courts deal with it. Afterall, that is the right thing to do.

[msanthrope]

82. As I noted above,

1) There were no military law experts that took part in the Palm Center Report. The military experts at the SLDN support repeal.

2) You wrote:

"If there were and they said it would be legal for Obama to sign a EO, or even if there weren't, this issue would be in the court system for years before it would be resolved. In the mean time Dont Ask Dont Tell would not be enforced. Before it would be resolved I bet the supreme court would struck down the law long before."

No. A TRO would be issued, preventing implementation of the EO. This SCOTUS will NOT strike DADT on an EO. It will, possibly, uphold a repeal.

3) You also wrote:
"If he doesn't care about the law (as is clearly the case) he might as well issue an EO banning DADT and let the courts deal with it."

No. What makes you think the courts will protect you? Handing them a shaky EO is a guarantee that DADT will NEVER be struck. AND---how goddamn repugnant, to suggest that Presidential fiat is EVER the way to go.

[AuntPatsy]

54. Funny that you use the words authority and law together regarding an issue that is pure and simple

an illegal attack on a law already in place...you know the one..the law in which all those in present authority positions continue to break....the one that showcases the rights of all americans are to be equal regardless of sex creed or color?

The very fact that gay marriage is even up for debate is not only an attack on the civil liberties of a certain group of americans but out and out illegal and yet our own government officials continue to ignore the very fact that they themselves are guilty of breaking the very laws they have sworn to protect...all of them should be held accountable and prosecuted for even attempting to enforce such illegal attacks as in supporting the will of a certain religious fraction of american society....


What ever happened to this country being proud of it's ability to ensure freedom from religious persecutions etc? When it comes to anything outside of the religious spectrum all bets are off and freedom becomes just another word for nothing left to lose?


What is happening to certain citizens in this country is beyond medieval society tactics, its downright illegal and yet no one in power dares to mention that very true fact out loud along with it's minions the press....

[Renew Deal]

13. Congress will have no political will to permanently do anything if Obama does that.

And President Jeb can just reverse Obama's suspension of discharges.

[no limit]

20. As if they have the political will now. Did you not pay attention 2 weeks ago?

When they voted against it?

These excuses are getting really lame.

[Renew Deal]

32. They'll get there

Republicans will lose their game of chicken.

[no limit]

37. Oh bullshit. The democrats didn't even want to play chicken, they gave up instantly

unless you have some news that I don't and the democrats are refusing to strip DADT from the appropriations bill?

[Renew Deal]

40. Unless something has changed...

reversing DADT is in that bill.

[no limit]

52. I don't really believe that based on what dems have said. You are convinced it will stay in there?

For how long?

[joe black]

14. Don't hold your breath.

[Jester Messiah]

18. I think an Executive Order would be appropriate and timely.

He tried going through the legislature, as he should, and got the expected result. Now that that's out of the way, he should exercise his command authority as Commander In Chief to kill DADT on a going-forward basis, until Congress can finally get it's act together enough to make it permanent. It would neatly moot the filibuster, at the very least.

[speppin]

25. I concur.

[msanthrope]

28. except that an EO wouldn't override a statute.

It might take the DC Court about 15 minutes to issue a TRO. And the president would lose. Read the Youngstown case to find out why.

[Jester Messiah]

35. Gonna need some help there.

I'm by no means a legal scholar, and while I found the wikipedia entry I'm not seeing the relevance. What has DADT to do with seizure of property? And given that the president is CINC of the military, he does have the constitutional authority to issue orders to the military, does he not?

[mkultra]

36. He doesnt have carte blanche

It would be an abrogation of his constitutional authority.

[msanthrope]

43. under art 1 sec 8 Congress raises the military and

therefore has the authority to set the terms of service. An EO can't supercede that authority.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msanthrope]

61. No, I'm right, and I agree with Biden--an EO would not work---

Biden is very smart--note that he says that if he did wave a wand (Obama issues an EO), the essential problem would not go away---the next President could knock it down. (note where he says "No one else would be able to suspend it.")

Further, if an EO were to be issued, you would then have a court fight which would then make Congressional action impossible---no Repuke would then cross party lines. "we had to build consenus for this."

Biden's smart--he knows he can't pull the trigger, it's the hard work of repeal.

"Because that is the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it. In other words, everybody’s looking for, in my view, if I could just wave a wand, it would just be flat repeal. No one else would be able to suspend it. And everyone who was suspended would be able to come back if they wanted to. But the truth of the matter is, we had to build a consensus for this. Working very hard on the telephone. Calling people. And everybody’s looking forward to the orderly elimination of this law. I would prefer it not be orderly. I prefer it just end, boom, done. But that’s why that hasn’t happened. It’s resulted in us getting over 55 votes, I think we’ll get 55 vote, to flat repeal it."


Sure, Obama can issue any order he wants--it's making it stick past a court that's the tricky part....that's why Biden supports "orderly." Obama could issue an EO tomorrow, and it might take the Repukes all of 15 minutes to get a TRO....and once the TRO is issued, then Congress doesn't have to do a friggen' thing but wait for the court limbo to resolve itself....

Better to have the vote.

[Orsino]

41. Yet to sell it, he would have to take a firm stand...

...on an issue on which he has waffled terribly.

I believe he would like to see equality, but the political cost would be higher than I think he wants to bear.

[Renew Deal]

44. Waffled?

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do,"

And they are on their way to doing that.

[Jester Messiah]

46. Doesn't get much clearer than that! [nt]

[Orsino]

95. He opposes marriage equality.

Oh, I don't believe that he is truly that bigoted, and that he'd vigorously applaud equal rights...but he'll cheerfully abandon the DADT repeal, which will be filibustered into next year, when smaller Democratic majorities will make such change impossible.

Yes, he waffles. Even a transformative figure capable of soaring rhetoric, who has successfully led us to real (incremental) change, has to waffle sometimes. That's what incremental change is.

[Renew Deal]

42. Do you realize that right wingers will argue that "Executive Order would be appropriate and timely"

for President Jeb or Newt or Thune or whomever to reinstate DADT or worse?

[yurbud]

39. didn't Truman end racial segregation in the military with an executive order?

[msanthrope]

59. He could, because it was policy, and not a law.

Congress didn't have a law that said that Black people couldn't serve. The military had a policy of segregation.

So Truman was able to integrate without having a separation of powers issue.

[yurbud]

90. Is there a LAW forbidding gays from serving in the military?

[SidDithers]

98. DADT is enacted in Federal Law...

as part of H.R.2401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994.

Sid

[yurbud]

101. thank you!

[MadHound]

49. Hopefully he does do this, especially since he kept his side of the deal up

And whichever devil he dealt with failed to keep their side of the bargain. Biden admitted that deal with the devil, no EO in exchange for DADT being allowed to come up for a vote, a couple of weeks ago on Maddow's show.

[msanthrope]

64. I think you are mischaracterizing the deal--

As I note upthread, Biden himself admits that the EO is not the way to go--it can be suspended itself, and is not "orderly."

Sure, Obama could issue any order he wants--he could order the sun not to come up tomorrow. But will it stick? Biden himself admits that it won't--the President is refraining from an EO, because they both know that repeal is the only way this actually works, and, it's best to agree to NOT threaten one, since this should be taken care of by Congress.

[MadHound]

76. Go listen to the Maddow interview

Biden says, directly, that the reason the administration wasn't issuing an EO right now to prevent the bleeding is because it is the condition of a deal(with whom we don't know) to allow the repeal vote to come up. He states it very plain, very direct, no editing.

If he issues an EO, it will stick, just like Truman's EO integrating the army stuck. Since the DADT repeal vote, Obama should indeed go ahead and issue the EO. It is the right and just thing to do.

[msanthrope]

86. Dude, I just quoted the interview, upthread. Biden supports repeal, not an EO

because he knows that won't stick--and he's right. The President should not issue an EO if you can get a much better repeal which will invoke judicial deference that an EO won't.


AND, your comparison to Truman's EO doesn't work---Truman was issuing an EO on POLICY, not LAW.

There was no law in Congress that said that Blacks could not serve. There was a military policy of segregation. That's why Truman could issue an EO. Contrast that with Youngstown, and you will see the difference.

[ruggerson]

89. But that's not what Biden said

He said the military and Congress would not have been fully aboard statutory repeal (they wouldn't have gotten the votes) without the administration agreeing not to suspend the discharges as an interim measure.

Biden did not dispute the fact that the administration CAN suspend, if it wishes to, he just said it wasn't politically prudent if they wanted to repeal the statute sooner rather than later.

[ruggerson]

88. You are completely correct MadHound

and what msanthrope doesn't understand is the the DOD and Obama, in the "compromise" language that was forced on congressional appeal advocates, stripped out specific anti-discrimination language from the current bill.

If the bill is passed in December, we will be back at 1992 status quo - no statute forbidding gays from serving but also no statute forbidding discrimination.

Obama will have to issue an anti discrimination EO after repeal and there has been no indication yet that he will do that.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. He should have done that his first day in office

Those opposed would soon have found other things to scream about (and do we really care what they think?). Those in favor would not soon forget.

[msanthrope]

67. He didn't, because an EO doesn't override a statute of Congress. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

77. He could have issued an EO not to override Congress, but

to instruct that DADT not be prosecuted.

[msanthrope]

83. That is overriding Congress---

I direct you to my post upthread that explains the two parts of DADT--what the President can do, and has done, and what he can't--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9251952&mesg_id=9252530

[treestar]

69. I'm sure it is not that simple or that easy

And the next Repuke President could just do the opposite. You'd be stuck with whichever direction the wind was blowing at a particular time. A more permanent solution should be struck.

[MadHound]

78. Shouldn't we at least stop the bleeding?

Seriously now, in a time of war, why are we allowing good officers, good soldiers, go out the door? What, do you have no faith that Obama and the Dems won't get the repeal done? If so, all the more reason to save as many people's careers as you can now.

If it was you, or your kid out there facing the consequences of DADT, would you be so sanguine, so willing to play politics with people's lives?

[Nye Bevan]

80. But... but... the USA is just not *ready* for blacks to be able to sit at lunch counters with whites

Baby steps people. Baby steps.

[Poll_Blind]

84. Your example is the first thing I think of whenever this shit comes up.

Because it's the same damned thing.

PB

[Starry Messenger]

87. If he does, I will eat a hat.

Literally. I'll let someone here pick the hat.

[BlueIris]

91. The utter lack of leadership from this Admin on DADT is shameful.

Shameful.

[Forkboy]

96. He doesn't think it's right though.

[WeekendWarrior]

99. Why do people conveniently forget we have an election coming up?

Obama ain't gonna do shit about a controversial subject until after November 2. End of story.