How to act like a commander in chief, and avoid craven passings of the buck

[jpgray]

Let's not confuse idle hands with tied hands on DADT, okay?

Establishing the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity In the Armed Forces.

WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense:

NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known as the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.

3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the Armed Services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgment of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.

4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.

5. When requested by the Committee to do so, persons in the armed services or in any of the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall testify before the Committee and shall make available for use of the Committee such documents and other information as the Committee may require.

6. The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive order.

Harry Truman

The White House
July 26, 1948

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

In 1948, President Harry S Truman's Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II, a major advance in civil rights. Using the Executive Order (E.O.) meant that Truman could bypass Congress. Representatives of the Solid South, all white Democrats, would likely have stonewalled related legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation

EDIT: I note many below are reading whole volumes of fraud and malice into my posting the above. Let me sum up the whole of what this post is intended to convey, so there is no mistaking it:

In simple terms, this thread considers the issue of an executive order, to at minimum cease investigation and discharge for DADT.

May Obama with right and conscience issue this order?

In the opinion of many, experts and laypersons alike, the answer is yes.

[Stinky The Clown]

1. K&R

[Drunken Irishman]

2. There is a major flaw here...

There was no federal law that segregated the military. The military practiced segregation through unofficial means. Congress never voted to segregate the armed forces.

Whether you like it or not, DADT is law. It was voted on by Congress.

The two situations aren't similar because of that very reason.

[MrScorpio]

4. Exactly!

This is apples vs. oranges.

[jpgray]

5. That executive privilege should be exercised only for torture and murder, I had almost forgot

[Drunken Irishman]

You're not getting the point...

DADT is the law of the land. It's something voted on and passed by the United States Congress. An E.O. doesn't bypass that law. It bypassed it with Truman because military segregation wasn't law. There was no law to change. It just enforced something that wasn't being enforced by our military.

Your comparison would work IF gays and lesbians were continually kicked out from the military - BUT DADT wasn't on the books as law.

[HughMoran]

11. Talk about distract and distort

Respond to the point.

[awoke_in_2003]

39. and in many parts of the country...

it was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman (or vice versa). What changed that? Leadership.

[MrScorpio]

3. Isn't DADT a LAW that was passed by Congress and Signed by the President?

An executive order doesn't exactly have the weight needed to deal with it, correct?

It isn't as if one kind of remedy can act to solve another kind of problem.

[jpgray]

7. A law that was ruled unconstitutional.

[MrScorpio]

9. That happened In the COURTS!

There are only two ways to get rid of laws, either in the courts OR by repeal through an act of Congress.

You don't remove laws by Executive Orders... Anyone with a basic understanding of civics knows this.

[HughMoran]

13. "DADT has been upheld five times in federal court"

Oh, and it's been law for 16 years. Your arguments aren't very convincing.

[Unvanguard]

48. Mostly pre-Lawrence v. Texas.

The exception, if I recall correctly, was a case where a court rejected a facial challenge on the grounds that DADT would be constitutional in certain limited, narrow applications (cases like public gay sex)--all of which were covered by other military regulations.

It's hard to see how DADT could be anything but unconstitutional.

[Unvanguard]

6. The situation is not really comparable.

But you knew that already, presumably, since it's not as if there haven't been dozens of threads on this topic already. :shrug:

There is a case to be made that it would in fact be perfectly proper for Obama to use his executive power to end DADT, a case strengthened by the opportunity presented to him by the district court ruling. I do not think this case is anywhere near as straightforward as it would be convenient for it to be; there are obvious problems with a general policy of presidents being allowed to undermine laws they oppose, though plainly there are also problems with letting a terrible, unconstitutional policy like DADT endure until the Senate gets its act together. Regardless of the case's strength, however, it has little to nothing to do with Truman's executive order, which did not have to deal with a Congressional statute.

[jpgray]

10. Kindly show me where I said they were exactly comparable

Obama has an opportunity to show some leadership here. If executive privilege is to be the byword of the administration on subverting civil rights, one executive order in service of them would seem appropriate.

[SeattleGirl]

12. What part of "it was a law passed by Congress" do you not

understand? The best way to get rid of DADT is for Congress to repeal it, not for Obama to sign an Executive Order. The next President who comes in, if it's a Republican, can just sign another Executive Order to reinstate it, which would be horrible.

And yes, DADT itself is a horrible law, and should never have been passed in the first place. But it was, by Congress, and so it needs to be overturned by Congress.

And Obama is not "subverting civil rights." Congress is doing that.

[awoke_in_2003]

40. "Obama has an opportunity to show some leadership here"

he has had plenty of opportunities, but never risen to the occasion. But of course, we should have seen it coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

[Unvanguard]

47. Your entire post presupposes that they are comparable.

As for your reference to other invocations of executive privilege, I am not persuaded that they are comparable to this one (detainee treatment raises a whole host of thorny issues irrelevant here, and I'm not sure how often Obama has simply decreed statutes invalid in that context), and even if we take your comparison at face value, I am not sure it helps your case. Surely the abuses of executive power, without Congressional and judicial restraint, is a good case for respecting Congressional statutes until they are repealed or invalidated by the courts in a final way?

[Catherina]

8. Rec'd n/t

[Radical Activist]

14. It took Truman six years to desegregate the military.

Obama is on pace to do it much more quickly and decisively. I hope you aren't implying that it took nothing but Truman issuing an executive order because that would be a gross distortion of history.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

[jpgray]

15. There is no such complicated implication or other innuendo intended

In simple terms, this thread considers the issue of an executive order, to at minimum cease investigation and discharge for DADT.

Can Obama with right and conscience issue this order?

My answer? Yes. The answer of legal experts? Yes.

Yours?

[Radical Activist]

19. Given the tremendous difficulty that proved to be for Truman

do you think there's anything to learn from his experience about how to do it in a way that will be more quickly accepted and implemented by the military?

[jpgray]

21. First, that obstacles to justice respond better to a push than a request

There will always be compelling reasons to defer reform, as a serious challenge to institutional bigotry always carries costs. However the cost of action is seen to outweigh the benefits in the short term, in the long-term the situation is entirely reversed. Political leaders must decide how to view these costs. They will view them either in the narrow scope of electoral defeat, or in the wider scope of ruined lives and betrayed ideals, of lasting stains on the nation and the party.

Incidentally, you never answered my question. Do you believe Obama may, with right and conscience, issue such an executive order?

[Radical Activist]

27. You're dealing in abstractions.

And avoiding the issue by doing so. I think Obama should repeal DADT quickly in a way that will ensure full implementation and avoid placing lesbian and gay services members in danger of retaliatory hate crimes or discrimination. I don't know whether issuing an executive order to overturn a federal law will accomplish that.
Do you support giving the President power to ignore all federal laws or just this one? How would that work the next time we have a Republican President?

[jpgray]

28. Not to repeal the law, but to suspend the discharges

Do you believe he may do so? Do you think it is right to do so?

[Radical Activist]

31. Oh, so you want a temporary solution that can be undone by the next President?

Yes, I would like to see Obama suspend DADT prosecutions while he continues the process of repealing the law. Was it really necessary to draw a false equivalency to a completely different situation that could have gone much more smoothly?

[jpgray]

33. To cite an example of leadership is to argue for exact equivalency of circumstances?

I wouldn't hold Obama to that standard--for instance, I take his use of Reagan as an example in the limited sense intended. Like any reasonable person, I neither expect nor require an exhaustive disclaimer of spoon-fed explication as to the limits of a given comparison. When the differences in particular circumstances are clear, I try to give the benefit of the doubt that they are known to the one making the comparison.

[Radical Activist]

34. And you go back to dodging the question and speaking in meaningless generalities.

I appreciate you admitting that the two issues do not offer an applicable or appropriate comparison.

I'll repeat my earlier question since you're still dodging.

Given the tremendous difficulty that proved to be for Truman do you think there's anything to learn from his experience about how to do it in a way that will be more quickly accepted and implemented by the military? And let's be clear that this question has to do with effective implementation, not political expediency, as you implied in your last dodge.

Would it really pain you to admit that perhaps Obama is showing leadership by doing this in a way that he believes will be the most effective and permanent?

[jpgray]

35. Leadership on DADT would be to stop the discharges immediately

Tell me how allowing even one more unjust, bigoted discharge will in any way advance Obama's commitment to DADT's repeal. I recognize and applaud his commitment, but I do not recognize or applaud any excuse for allowing the discharges to continue when it is in his power to end them.

He's the best president my generation has seen, and he deserves and has earned support. None of this should preclude anyone from naming his errors as they appear. This is one of them.

[NYC Liberal]

16. This was a bad comparison the first 50 times it was posted.

DADT is federal law. It must be repealed via federal law and that means Congress must pass a bill for Obama to sign.



But anything to attack Obama, I suppose.

[jpgray]

17. Why, in your view, would any expert disagree with you?

Perhaps they haven't seen your pretty chart?

[NYC Liberal]

20. DADT is federal law. Federal laws cannot be unilaterally

overturned by the president.

USC Art. I Sec. 7

Quote

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

[jpgray]

23. Have you read the study?

The President has the authority to issue an executive order halting the operation of "don't ask, don't tell." Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305 (“Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation”)

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf

That legislative authority is required to -remove- DADT entirely is clear. The question is, do you doubt the president may justly halt its operation?

[Greyhound]

18. An utter lack of understanding of what leadership is.

A leader makes the move knowing full-well that it will be fought by the Pentagon and the Congress and stands by his position. A leader forces the issue and, win or lose, leads his followers.

A politician declares it impossible and refuses to act.

Maybe next time we can pick a leader.

[SeattleGirl]

22. And a leader, particularly this one, understands that DADT

is a law, passed by Congress, and as such, must be repealed by Congress.

And where did Obama "declare it impossible"?

[jpgray]

24. Do you deny he has the authority to halt its effects?

Namely, to halt the discharges, etc.?

[SeattleGirl]

25. Why are you asking me this?

I thought you were arguing with someone else over this.

And no I don't deny it.

Please go ask someone else now, okay?

[jpgray]

26. Because the fact that DADT is a law does not bar Obama from suspending its unjust effects

That you and others constantly repeat the undisputed status of DADT as a law, as though it were some excuse or argument for inaction, leads one to think that you believe he lacks the authority to suspend DADT discharges. Since you do not believe that he lacks the authority, what then is the argument or excuse for inaction?

[SeattleGirl]

30. What I was referring to was those who want Obama to sign

an executive order to overturn DADT, which is a larger issue than stopping discharges. Sorry if you were confused.

[Greyhound]

32. Then why the response to my reply?

I didn't say anything about an EO overturning DADT. He is the CinC and has the absolute authority to issue orders to the military.

There is no dispute that they would fight it, as would Congress, but the fight is the thing that wins people over and the President has a very big microphone and a very big ax with which to fight the big stick. Winning or losing is not the point, it is the willingness to lead the fight against a wrong, regardless of the current law.

And that's the point of the initial reply, people respect leaders that take stands to right wrongs. Seems there was this guy that blatantly broke many laws in the south, lost every battle, was jailed, and then spied upon for rest of his life, and still ended up winning in the end.

[ruggerson]

50. If it's found to be unconstitutional

it doesn't have to be repealed.

And guess what? It's been found unconstitutional.

Or is it your position that Obama should appeal this?

[Radical Activist]

29. Obama has never wavered on repealing DADT.

He has expressed that it WILL happen repeatedly. And he's dealing with it in a faster and more forceful way than Truman did when he desegregated the military.

[Radical Activist]

36. Actually, Obama has already gone farther in the process than Truman had when issuing this order.

Truman declared a policy and established a commission with that order, but took years to study how to implement and fully carry it out. Like this order does, Obama has already declared the policy will be changed. The biggest difference is that Obama committed to carrying out DADT repeal on a much faster timeline than desegregation took.

[jpgray]

37. You have successfully proven that two different situations are not exactly the same

Congratulations. What you have not proven is that Obama should not issue an executive order to combat bigotry in the armed forces, as Truman did.

The differences you crow about argue even more strongly for action. For instance, Truman could not hope to achieve integration by a single pen stroke, while Obama can not only -hope- but justly -expect- that all bigoted DADT discharges will end as soon as he signs the order.

[Radical Activist]

38. Then there was also no point in posting a comparison

with the "idle hands" accusation. Unless you meant that the slower-acting Truman was being idle compared to Obama.

If you're going to make an assertion at least defend it.

[jpgray]

41. You are working very hard to complicate what is very simple

This will be shown by the following statements, which we both agree on.

1. Obama has the opportunity to combat bigotry in the armed forces via executive order.

2. Truman provides an example of doing so.

This is a provided example of leadership, not an argument that two different situations are exactly the same. It would only be a false example if Truman's executive order -wasn't- an effort to combat bigotry. That the two were faced with very different particulars does not negate the fact that Truman's order fought bigotry in the armed services, and Obama has an opportunity to do the same.

Take a comparison from Obama, who cited Reagan as an example of change.

1. I seek to change the trajectory of America

2. Reagan provides an example of doing so.

This did not mean "I seek to change the country in the same way, at the same pace, etc." Pointing out that Reagan's change was negative and occurred under entirely different circumstances does not somehow prove that he was not an agent of change, or that Obama, if he differs from Reagan in purpose or circumstances, cannot be an agent of change.

I argue Obama should fight bigotry in the armed forces by executive order; Truman provides an example of this. Which statement do you disagree with?

[Radical Activist]

42. You're working too hard at not engaging in honest discussion.

There's no need to repeat yourself because I already wrote that I agree Obama should end prosecution of DADT cases while he continues the current process of permanently repealing DADT. I would not want settle for the potentially temporary action of merely issuing an executive order.

I'll reference this again, since you continue to avoid the question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9305340&mesg_id=9305680

What you have not proven is that Obama is failing to show leadership. And you have not proven your claim that Obama's movement to repeal DADT constitutes "idle hands." You seem to be arguing for a potentially less effective and temporary action. That isn't stronger leadership no matter how many times you frame it that way.

[terrya]

43. K&R a thousand times if I could.

It is so...strange...to see the Constitutionally authorized Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America...the ultimate authority of the United States military...acting like some innocent bystander on this issue. Like some ineffectual, impotent non-entity.

The President of the United States can issue an executive order stopping the investigations and discharges immediately.

I'm sick of these excuses about this. It is plain that he can. The question is does he want to. And the seemingly obvious conclusion is that he doesn't.

[VMI Dem]

44. You must factor in the Presidents personal objections to homosexuality.

It does affect policy, regardless of what some say.

[bvar22]

45. The President SHOULD issue the EO.

President Obama SHOULD issue the EO because it is the RIGHT thing to do.
Let the pieces fall where they may.

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[bullwinkle428]

46. My personal feeling is that DADT is going to remain in place

for YEARS to come, as loathsome as that sounds.

K&R.

[rusty fender]

49. Let's just face this fact:

Obama is just a politician. He has no principles beyond getting elected and re-elected. He is no leader. We can't expect him to do the right thing because it is right; we can only expect him to do what is politically expedient.:banghead: