Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reminder - Obama CANNOT use executive order to stop DADT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:27 PM
Original message
Reminder - Obama CANNOT use executive order to stop DADT
Edited on Wed May-26-10 03:27 PM by KonaKane
As much as I wish he could, he can't. This bit of disinformation on DU regarding this issue has to stop. I quote from an article by Jonathan Ridley at HuffPo:

"Intentions aside, this policy reversal isn't one Obama can perform alone. That is to say, by Executive Order. As Federal law, DADT must be repealed by Congress. To that end California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher has introduced a bill to overturn the ban which has picked up nearly 150 cosponsors. And CNN reports: "More than 100 retired U.S. military leaders -- including the former head of the Naval Academy -- have signed a statement calling for an end to" DADT."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/obama-and-the-end-of-the_b_145567.html


The analogy to Truman's desegregation of the armed forces is fallacious, because segregation in Trumans time was not a federal law but am army policy which was easily done away with by the president's pen.

Can we dispense with some of the neck vein bulging disdain for Obama and use some facts now, on this issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. They don't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. Those evil gay soldiers coming home from a war zone and losing their health benefits.
What do those assholes care about political bureaucratic norms!!??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krawhitham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
83. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. Arguably, however, he can stop the discharges.
Not that he will, of course, because it will infuriate the military leadership that he has clearly been trying to court on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. How can he do that?
:shrug:

Really, the only way to do it is to have Congress repeal the ban. Which they are working on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. He can't repeal the law, but as commander-in-chief he's in charge of implementation.
He could say, "While we figure out how to do this right, let's halt investigations in process in the mean time."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. As the chief executive, that would be impossible.
His premiere job title is to execute the laws of the land. As much as I despise DADT, its a law of the land. He could be impeached and thrown out of office for crap like that.

Better that we all work together to get Congress to repeal it, and then he can forcefully execute non-discrimination in the armed forces with regards to sexual orientation. With my blessings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Then why have DADT explusions increased under his command?
Doesn't look like he's setting much of a tone there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. You think Obama personally tosses Gays out of the army?
Let me disabuse you of that notion. The expulsions come from commanders and top brass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. And he gets to decide how he executes it.
So he can't say, "DADT is over." But he can say, arguably, "Let's be nice and not target people now that this is on the way out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. I truly wish it were that easy.
But even first year law student could see that would be tatamount to not executing (enforcing) the law at all.

Short of killing this ridiculous law outright and forever more, I just don't see how he could creatively comply with his job title and do much more than he is doing now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Presidents (and other executives) do it all the time.
Edited on Wed May-26-10 04:19 PM by Unvanguard
Obama has himself: he has made enforcing drug laws against medical-marijuana users a low priority, he has directed immigration enforcement to focus on strengthening border security and deporting criminals rather than long-term residents (who, technically, are just as illegal), he stopped the deportation of non-citizen widows in advance of Congress fixing the problem.

By political tradition, executive power has become something that allows for real discretion. This is not necessarily a good development, in the general case, but it is a real one.

Edit: I agree that it is ambiguous territory, which I why I said "arguably" in my original post, and for both legal and political reasons I don't think his failure to do it is indicative of some kind of opposition to the project of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. I am merely seeking to point out that this demand is not coming out of nowhere, and is on firmer ground than your OP suggests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. Discretion does not equal failure to execute.
That is where your reasoning falls down, for me. What Obama did with marijuana laws actually makes sense...making them low priority is certainly discretionary. But what if he decided, tomorrow, to...say...sign an executive order declaring that marijuana is no longer a controlled substance? That goes right to the heart of the enforcement of marijuana laws, and would be a clear violation of his charge to execute the laws of the land. I see the same from stopping discharges in the military based on sexual orientation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. That's the point, though, it wouldn't be saying that being openly gay isn't a dischargeable offense.
It would be saying, "Right now, we are not going to expend resources on investigating allegations under Don't Ask Don't Tell." They could even use the "lowest-priority" phrasing you seem to approve of: it's not like the military doesn't have better things to do with its time and energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. Now you're making my point.
You said the operative phrase in your post..

"Right now, we are not going to expend resources on investigating allegations under Don't Ask Don't Tell."

That is another way of saying "We do not intend to enforce the law of the land".

You cannot see how this would put him in some serious hot water, from his known enemies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #60
74. We are going in circles here, and I see little point in continuing.
I continue to fail to see a clear difference between this and other plainly policy-motivated decisions about enforcement that Obama has made. I have said already that I admit the genuine ambiguity here (clearly there is some disingenuousness to the kind of proposal I have suggested, but I think the same is true of many other executive decisions), and my intent is not to say "Obama is terrible" but simply to note that the issue is not as simple as you laid it out in your OP.

Regardless, we are on the same page that it is not going to happen, though I think the political reasons not to do it are a stronger influence than the legal ones. Pushing on this right now seems a less worthwhile expenditure of effort than trying our best to get the legislation through Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. So why has the military restricted the discharge process?
It's now very difficult to even accuse someone, let alone investigate, try and discharge. When Congress passes the repeal, it will be almost non-existent until the military finishes revising all the policy that is necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. The military made it a little harder, but it did not render the policy "non-existent"
or anything close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
62. Wouldn't that render DADT non existent?
To put a finer point on it....wouldn't stopping discharges completely make the legal reasoning for DADT go away? Why would there be a concern for asking or telling about ones sexual orientation if there were no consequence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. I just read a rundown of Truman's abolition of segregation in the army
Holy fuck, it wasn't simply the stroke of a pen I have always been crowing about. Sure he had that ability, but the actual process of getting it done took a long time, hearings, interadministration and congressional battles, and even the tragic murder of two Black vets and their wives in 1946 (they were pulled from their car by a white mob and murdered!).

I can only imagine how difficult it's going to be for Obama given different circumstances of DADT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. The Discharges MUST STOP!!!
Sorry for yelling.

These people are willing to take a bullet for us. Let them be and no more tax money spent on sneaking around and spying on soldiers, sailors, pilots, and marines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Totally agree.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. The law itself allows him to suspend discharges
He has the authority to stop the charges, and he could suspend all investigations. Functionally, it would be the same thing until he keeps his promise and actually repeals the law completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Correct! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
40. I've heard that claim, but wouldnt that be interfering with the execution of federal law?
If you can correct me on this, I'd love to be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #40
91. National Security
(e) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member
of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is
made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating
military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.



Item 2 is kinda the easy step for Obama. Declare that, for the time being, separation would not be in the best interest of the armed forces. We are "at war" after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
namahage Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #91
100. Wrong way to read that.
You're missing a small, but important key word: "and".

What this rule says is that if discharging the soldier would not be in the best interests of the armed forces and the soldier only made statements or engaged in conduct in order to get out of service, then the soldier need not be discharged.

In other words, you can't lie about being LGBT just to get out of serving or deployment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. And putting the screws to Congress is out of the question
After all, it's not like the question has consistently polled over 75% for the last three years:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/25/rel8bt6.pdf

Oh wait, yes it has. Well, we don't want to upset the Troglodyte Twenty Percenters, who are upset enough about imaginary things like birth certificates and high tax rates. No sense giving them something real to be aggrieved about. And if a whole segment of our populace tends to be viewed with suspicion, as if they're not good enough to serve in the military (but their tax dollars are always good enough to support the military), well, that's just unfortunate, that's all.

Can we dispense with some of the mewling apologia for a gutless administration and show some faith in the American people, on this issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. I'm all for pressuring congress into abolishing DADT, but
what else would you like your president to do? You call his administration gutless, so obviously you know of something that he could do to overturn DADT that he is not doing.

Will you share that with us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. You mean other than the nothing he's doing now?
Practically anything. The question, per the CNN poll, enjoys the support of 78-80% of the electorate, which in this political climate is damn near unanimity. Candidate Obama, as I recall, campaigned on the issue, and earned my vote in part because of that promise. I understand that there are other things going on, but he hasn't done diddly-squat in 16 months to make this a priority.

We have the overwhelming approval of the electorate. We have the example of gay people serving openly in militaries around the world. We have the inherent unfairness of taxing a segment of the population for the wehrmacht without allowing them to enjoy its rewards. Is the administration waiting for 85% approval? 90%? An engraved gilt-edged invitation from the American Family Association? The blessing of Rush Limbaugh?

I've been accused of "neck vein bulging disdain". I think this administration has earned it with its interminable foot-dragging on a campaign promise that enjoys such widespread support. Would it cost some political capital? Yeah, for sure. But I didn't vote for Obama and the Democrats to get pretty words and the same old actions. Words without deeds is . . . well, "gutless" keeps occurring to my mind. There may be a better adjective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. What more do you suggest he do?
He is trying get Congress to repeal it. I hope he is successful. Now, outside of taking over congress in a coup d'etat and personally declaring DADT null and void, what do you suggest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. What is he doing now?
Because I don't see any substantive action that he's taken in 16 months. He hasn't made public policy speeches. He hasn't held a press conference. He hasn't buttonholed the Democratic leadership in Congress to put this on the calendar. I've heard a lot of deferential remarks to "the process" and some ill-defined "study" that the Pentagon's supposed to be doing. He's got the big stick and the bully pulpit, and I don't see it as much of a priority for this administration. Goldman Sachs gets the sniffles, and he's making a pot of chicken soup.

So, roughly the full-court press that the adminsitration employed to help out its pals at Goldman Sachs. That's what I'd like to see the administration do on DADT. When something is near and dear to its heart, it doesn't seem to need any advice or direction from the likes of me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #46
59. Plenty. Is it enough? We'll know when we can say bye bye to DADT.
But its just plain wrong to imply he isn't doing anything. I don't want to marginalize this issue but remember that he's also dealing with this horrid oil spill, an increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan, delay of troop pullouts in Iraq and not to mention the continuing economic problems.

Have to keep a perspective. Our pet causes don't always get to have the spotlight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #59
72. Yes he is doing planty AGAINST the over turning of this bigotted law.
Civil rights and equality are NOT A PET CAUSE unless YOU are not one of the ones effected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
75. You demanded specifics from me
I gave you several. What is the administration doing? You claim "plenty." I don't see anything, and I've said several times that the administration isn't doing anything. I'm not implying that, I'm flat out saying it. What is the administration doing now? What have they done? Where is it on the list of priorities? I'm sure that in the sweet bye and bye we can say bye bye to DADT. But I'll say it again: My leg's wet and it isn't raining.

Fobbing the issue off onto the Pentagon for a "study" isn't doing anything, and here's why: The Pentagon isn't going to hold hearings. It isn't going to gather evidence. It won't hear testimony. It will conduct any research out of the public eye. It's report will be issued and suffer immediate credibility problems regardless of its conclusions thanks to this methodology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. +1. Well, can't expect him to be a leader. He's just a luke-warm corporate apparatchik.
One who had a bad-ass branding campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. Even if he could it wouldn't stick. It would last as long as the
next president who wanted to repeal it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. He can certainly stop people's careers from being ruined until it is repealed
Edited on Wed May-26-10 03:44 PM by Tailormyst
He CAN stop the discharges, but he won't because he is either a bigot or a coward. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not YOUR life that is being destroyed here is it? It's easy to tell people to stop complaining when YOU don't suffer the effects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. No one ever said he could
:shrug: As said above, we've been asking for the suspension of discharges pending the repeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Oh they sure as hell did, and do. Several times.
I wish I could link you to the posts but I'm informed that would be a violation of the rules at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Why so angry?
You can link threads that are archived actually. That's not a violation. I've been following threads about this for several months posted by good friends of mine, and usually they post about the Palm report on suspending discharges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. It REALLY bothers you that gay people are upset by having non-equal rights, doesn't it?
You have to come to a message board sputtering about how dare they talk badly about Obama in regards to HIS lack of action regarding inequality and his opposition to even congress making the needed changes.

Good thing you are around to tell us how to behave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. It really bothers me that some people don't like facts.
Rather than make things up, why don't we use the facts at hand to do the best we can to overturn DADT? That's my question. Simply airing one's grief by wishing for things that are impossible (like an executive order to nix DADT) is a waste of time and space.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. the FACT is that he CAN sstop the discharges and he CHOOSES not to
Either he is a bigot or he is a coward. Pick one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Obama a bigot and or a coward? Wow.
Can you say "gone off the deep end"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. He is one or the other. Either he WANTS the GBLT people fired for being gay
OR He is to fucking afraid of pissing someone off to do the right thing.

Coward or Bigot, you fucking choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. Black and white much?
He's this or that? Come on I'm sure you're better than that. It's not so easy once you actually have to sit in the cat chair. As morally reprehensible the DADT thing is to begin with, I'm under no illusion that they have to juggle quite a few things, politically finesses quite a few individuals, to put this law in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #54
70. Is it YOUR rights that he is actively working against?
I doubt it. His WH is actively putting up road blocked to get this crap undone. Either he is a coward or a bigot. Fucking deal with it. Yes he has a flaw. GASP!

People like you are quick to defend the cowards and bigots as long as it is not YOUR rights on the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
97. EPIC FAIL! Take your own medicine, Doc!
You called me a bigot a dozen times 2 months ago and got your posts deleted for it. You knowing nothing about me made no difference in your knee jerk labeling.

We all know much more about Barack Obama that you will ever know about me. McClurkin, Warren, DADT, his "Faith" reasoning on marriage... Yeah, we know exactly what he thinks of us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. He can stop the discharges immediately.
And this argument was old months ago, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. some people dont care that gays are being kicked out, sad as that is nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. And forget about the people enduring abuse that can't come forward.
Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Stop! You'll make DU "look bad"!!!!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
93. +1 eom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
99. A-fucking-men, EFerrari
He can stop the discharges immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
26. The misinformation is yours as usual. He could stop discharges NOW
Edited on Wed May-26-10 03:59 PM by Bluebear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. No, he couldn't. Research the meaning of "chief executive".
That's what Obama is. As such, his first job role is "faithfully execute the law" whether he personally likes it or not. If he interferred with the execution of the DADT law, he would be failing to do his job as president and could well be impeached - and you know the wingtards would use ANY excuse to do that.

Better that we accept facts and work with THOSE to get the job done rather than making shit up that we wish were true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #38
51. He could stop the discharges and the destruction of careers RIGHT NOW
He is choosing not to. Coward or Bigot, pick one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. No, he really couldn't. That would be failure to execute the law.
Now can you show me how stopping the discharges would be simple DISCRETION as opposed to undercutting a federal law? If you can do that I will gladly cede the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #55
67. He could legally put a stop to the discharges, he CHOOSES not to
Nothing you will say will change that OR change the fact that he is trying to stall Congress from getting rid of the law this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #55
68. Read the Palm Center report. It's linked in this thread.
School yourself a bit on this issue before presuming to lecture others on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #68
81. Well who are you going to believe QC?
An Internet Constitutional Scholar or just some random military experts and lawyers?

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

Well, here's the pdf in case someone might want to read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Maybe the OP got all this scoop from his "craigslist" pal we keep hearing about.
The one who doesn't care for DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. I hear the "Rants and Raves" section on there is offering online degrees now.
I just typed that on the internet so it must be true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #84
95. personal attack central
Edited on Thu May-27-10 07:14 AM by HughMoran
reputation upheld
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:48 PM
Original message
The fact is that as usual you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
33. ' neck vein bulging disdain for Obama ' - dramatic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
34. I'm going to log off for a while, but I really don't ever ever again want to hear
that a president of the United States can't do anything about discrimination.

It's insulting and it's untrue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Strawman. That was never said.
I never said that a president cannot do anything about discrimination. They certainly can, and should. But they need to do so using the law, and having some facts in their pocket.

Coming up with strawmen and putting words in other peoples mouths won't advance your case very far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Strawman, my granny. That's the implication. And, fyi, it's not "my case",
Edited on Wed May-26-10 04:14 PM by EFerrari
but "our case", as in the case of Americans who don't agree that we need to settle for discrimination against our gay brothers and sisters because of political expediency. Congress needs to change the law AND Obama could have halted the discharges and sent a fiercely urgent message on his first day in office.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. Implication is what you inferred from it. And made it a strawman.
Try just sticking to the facts, which was the point of the thread.

1. Yes, Congress needs to change the law. Couldnt agree with you more.

2. No, I do not believe he can stop the discharges because that would equal failing to execute the law of the land, which is his primary job role.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #48
77. Bulleria. Of course he can stop the discharges.
That's the fact. Maybe take your own advice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #48
78. 'failing to execute the law of the land' - LIKE PROSECUTING TORTURERS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Prosecuting them? What about, just firing the ones active at Bagram?
The law of the land, my foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #34
53. Yet the same people never pass up a chance to scold those whining gays.
makes me want to scream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #53
80. There are the same people who criticized Martin for speaking out against Viet Nam.
They're nothing to set your clock by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
45. Palm Center report.
I guess a few people missed this the first several dozen times it was posted here on DU.

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



SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 11, 2009 – A study released by the Palm Center and written by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order.

After the Palm Center first proposed the executive option, the idea of ending the ban by presidential order gained momentum. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order and National Security Adviser James Jones was then asked about it by George Stephanopoulos.

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.”


Much more at the link and a pdf file. Now one may or may not agree with this approach, but it is the basis for our call that President Obama halt the discharges ASAP before repeal. The neck bulging stress of impeachment is not a credible threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Some people just want to ignore that there are venues other than an executive order
I've found few people willing to discuss the issue of if the discharges can be stopped or not. I believe they can, and as such they should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #50
64. Most of this thread is about stopping discharges.
Something I'd love to see happen if it can be done (legally). So far no one has demonstrated to me how this could be possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #64
73. Perhaps you should read the post I responded to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
57. As much as you would wish otherwise, you're simply wrong
As been shown up and down this thread, and in other threads, Obama can, and should, end the discharges being carried out under DADT. This can be done with a stroke of the pen via executive order. Yes, it takes the Congress to actually repeal the legislation itself, but he can end the consequences that people are suffering under DADT.

I suggest you calm down and stop your own bulging neck vein, oh, and stop the condescending attitude, especially when you're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
58. He can use a stop loss order to suspend discharges and investigations...
as many people here already proved, at least until DADT is repealed and replaced by a non-discrimination policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. They havent "proved" anything. They have claimed it.
I would love it if he could actually just do that. But no one has shown me how he can legally do so without violating his premiere job to "faithfully execute the laws of the land". Undercutting the main plank of a federal law would certainly violate the "faithful" part.

Can you show me how this is incorrect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. Presidents have discretion when it comes to HOW laws are enforced...
Obama already doesn't "faithfully execute the laws of the land" when it comes to enforcing federal drug laws, for example, or some immigration violations, etc. So don't give me that bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #65
88. :crickets:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
63. so, you gays just sit down and shut up.
your 'neck vein bulging disdain' is upsetting the OP's nice dinner no end! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KonaKane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Our old friend Hy Perbole. Glad you made it.
Your plate was getting cold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. i have neck vein bulging disdain for condescension.
of which your OP is a huge, stinking, steaming pile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
69. What a surprise, another tired old apologist thread...pathetic...
...he can suspend the discharges...have you read about that heree...or are you making things up as usual?????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #69
82. Yep- another case of Obama über alles
Edited on Wed May-26-10 07:12 PM by depakid
Of course he can suspend the discharges. He's the Commander in Chief and the nation's involved in two wars!

Impressive the lengths to which people will go to rationalize on these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
76. What part of the law specifically gives Obama the authority to suspend discharges?
Moreover, couldn't Bill Clinton have suspended discharges after signing DADT? I know that there was no way in hell he could've repealed DADT during the remainder of his Presidency but if he could've suspended discharges that would've at least kept some people in the military- maybe long enough for people to realize that the military isn't going to fall to pieces if gays and lesbians serve openly? If Obama has the authority to suspend discharges with DADT in effect, why would he not be motivated to do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #76
86. Because he's either a coward or a bigot. Read the Palm Center report links
that have already been posted several times on this thread alone, and plenty in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
87. REMINDER - HAVE YOU CALLED AKAKA?
202-224-3871


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #87
90. :tumbleweed:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
89. What makes anybody here think that The Prez actually wants DADT to end?
You're OP is mere conjecture. I don't think The President even wants to think about us, much less do anything for us. He doesn't even want Congress to act. His BS compromise was just to save face and not be left in the cold when it actually passes.

I'd really like someone to prove to me that he doesn't actually hate gay people.

Yes, I said it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #89
92. Not sure
And to some extent I don't care. It has been obvious to me, since the debates, that he is very uncomfortable with homosexuals. He reminds me a bit of Edwards in that area. Everytime he even says "homosexuals" or "gay" he practically stumbles over the words.

None the less, regardless of what he personally feels, he's got promises to do these things he's made, and he's got pressure FROM congress and from alot of democrats, along with the majority of the population. So he has "incentive" to end DADT, whether he "wants" to or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #89
94. To use the Wizard of Oz analogy, "I think Todo has pulled back the curtain."
The Wizard of the USA is not President Obama but a "high level clutch" of super-rich from the ruling moneyed elite (upper 1%).





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. But witness how many DUers are still asleep in the poppy fields.
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-27-10 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
96. Are you calling Speaker Pelosi a liar?
Because she believes the President has the power:

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1671

“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC