I heard that Obama can rescind DADT without Congress or the Senate

[Maraya1969]

And he can also issue other executive orders for some things he promised he would do as President.

Please let us know what some of them are and then let's write directly to him at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/


He "says" he will rescind DADT and he does not need the house to do it then why is he waiting? I believe it will only add to his credibility to take direct ation.


Although I read this an became disconcerted. If this is true than I think we should call him out or at least ask him if it is true.

But, as many news sources highlighted, the president did not set a time-line to repeal the policy.

“I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing,” the Times quoted gay-issues blogger Bil Browning.

The president wants to "buy more time until he needs our votes again,” said Raj Malhotra, a management consultant who attended the HRC fundraiser.

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/breaking-obama-to-end-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[Kittycat]

1. And then a GOP Prez can reverse what Obama does.

Which is why they need to get the law changed through the house.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Why can't both be done? nt

[Maraya1969]

4. Did not know that. Thanks for filling me in.

[DURHAM D]

6. Its a bad excuse for Obama to do nothing.

No guts.

[MiniMe]

30. No, doing it the right way

Congress will not act if the President does it by executive order. Some would say that overturning an existing law by executive order is unconstitutional, just like trying to change a law through a signing statement. And as others have said, overturning it through executive order would allow the next President to overturn the executive order by another executive order. It will come, it is important. But it should be done the right way. It has only been 9 months, and like it or not, he has had more pressing issues to deal with.

[DURHAM D]

5. So what if it can be reversed.

That is not a reason to fail to do the right thing.

Then he has 7 years to work on the legislation. And get it through the House and THE SENATE.

[lunatica]

8. Exactly. Then the next Democratic Prez will rescind the Republican Prez who

rescinded Obama's rescind. I think being the group in that fucking kind of yo-yo governance would be like being in worse Hell than keeping DADT. But if a law is passed that says the LGBT community's rights are equal to everyone else's and are inviolate, then it's permanent.

[DURHAM D]

11. you have got to be kidding ...

This is supposed to be a website for democrats.

[lunatica]

37. ?

[ZombieHorde]

35. I think the Republicans have proven they will do whatever they want without legal consequences when

they are in power.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Yes, but then it would only last as long as he's President

This is supposed to be a gay person's right, not a gift from Obama.

[DURHAM D]

9. Only a non-thinking straight person would say -

7 or 8 years of a non-homophobe policy just isn't worth the trouble for those pesky gays.

[lapfog_1]

14. No, that's not the point.

The "pesky gays" are worth a lot more than that. Like having congress pass a law repealing the current law. One that President Obama will be able to sign, one that will be much harder to change.

Not to mention the constitutionality of issuing executive orders that directly contradict standing US Code.

[DURHAM D]

15. That boat doesn't float. BS BS BS nt

[Fire1]

17. Better something temporary than permanent, eh? Smart. n/t

[Howardx]

7. you want dadt repealed?

nothing would accomplish that quicker than thousands of lgbt'ers trying to enlist.

[CTyankee]

10. Get behind it and do it, Obama!

We are all tired of hearing about why we "can't" do gay rights. Enough!

[lapfog_1]

12. Issuing Executive Orders which contradict standing law

would be a mess, it would most certainly end up in the US Supreme Court and, depending on their ruling, have a wide ranging impact on other executive orders or the actions of future Presidents to simply ignore whatever law Congress passes because they don't like it (something we were all complaining about some 10 months ago, as I recall).


Sure, he could do it, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[DURHAM D]

13. not really - he can use stop loss nt

[lapfog_1]

16. Stop loss does not suspend current US law.

Current US law prohibits gays from serving in the military. Getting rid of DADT simply removes the "policy" of the military to NOT INQUIRE as to the sexual orientation of current serving members. Sure, Obama could remove the DADT policy... and then what? To make it "legal" for gays to serve OPENLY, the law that prohibits gays from serving has to be rescinded. DADT does not rescind that law, only tries (with not much success and a great deal of unhappiness by all concerned) to circumvent the law. It was a bad policy.

Now we need to change the law.

No more half measures, no separate but equal. Repeal the law.

Tell Congress.

[DURHAM D]

18. Please tell me where this law is located:

"To make it "legal" for gays to serve OPENLY, the law that prohibits gays from serving has to be rescinded. DADT does not rescind that law..."

What law is it that needs to be rescinded in addition to DADT?

There are laws pertaining to fraternization, public displays of affection, etc. that apply to all service members. They do not need to be changed. So what are you talking about?

[Ineeda]

20. I could be wrong, but

I believe those are military rules, not laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. As long as those rules apply to all in the military, no problem. I agree that the best way to correct DADT is to go through the 'proper channels' of both the House, Senate and with the signature of the President. It's much harder to repeal a law than to reverse a signing statement.

[DURHAM D]

22. You are right - they are rules now laws.

I am just pissed about the unchecked homophobia showing up in this thread as so often happens at DU and is why so many of us have left or stopped posting as much.

P.S> There is a difference between a signing statement and an executive order. As I understand it the first is Presidential comments/attachments at the time of signing a bill. An executive order is a stand alone document.

[Ineeda]

25. thanks for the clarification, however

I beg to differ on categorizing any posting in this thread as homophobic. It's been a discussion of the best way to end DADT and not one person advocated keeping this unconscionable policy.

[lapfog_1]

29. You are simply wrong.

And it's not "homophobia" to be accurate in what we are talking about.

Signing statements have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

However, since you won't listen to me on this, perhaps you will accept this source:

"The United States military is governed by a set of laws, distinct from civilian law, that is known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Adopted in 1950, these laws revised the Articles of War that the United States military had officially approved during World War I.

The U. S. military inherited the Articles of War directly from the British Articles of War, which had guided the U. S. military since the Revolutionary War. Sodomy was not formally criminalized in U. S. military law until the Articles of War went into effect in 1917.

Similar to the Articles of War, the UCMJ created a standard body of law that governs all service members in the United States military. Not only did the UCMJ standardize military codes of conduct and stipulate criminal acts and behavior, but it also consolidated the disparate policies and practices regarding the treatment of homosexuals and homosexual activity in the 1940s.

During World War II, military officials intensely debated the regulations regarding homosexual activity in an attempt to refine policies and create greater consistency. For example, the army revised its regulations on homosexuality twenty-four times between 1941 and 1945. It revised them an additional seventeen times between 1945 and 1950, when the UCMJ went into effect.

During these debates, officials struggled to maintain the strict ban on homosexuality laid out in Article 93 of the Articles of War, which criminalized homosexual conduct, but also to allow for some flexibility in individual cases. To this end, the military requested the Committee on Neuropsychiatry of the National Research Council to advise it on how it should treat homosexual service members."

more at

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/military_law_us.html

So, these are not "rules" but LAWS (UCMJ is LAW), and therefore cannot be ignored (by the President as commander-in-chief) or countered by executive order. It must be overturned by a change in US Law or UCMJ (by Congress, not the President).

President Obama can rescind the DADT executive order, reverting to strict adherence to the UCMJ which would prevent anyone engaged in "homosexual conduct" from serving.

The law needs to change. Not some executive order.

But hey, if you want to blame Obama for not waving a magic wand and fixing things, or you want to claim that anyone that points out the FACTS is a "homophobe"... go ahead. It won't get you anywhere, but whatever.

[DURHAM D]

39. I gather you didn't really read the article you linked.

It in no way supports your theory - it is a historical perspective on changes.

Your comment about signing statements is a typical rightwing ploy - otherwise known as "try to change to an irrelevant subject and slug away". Or perhaps you just can't follow a thread with too many moving parts. The signing statement comment was a clarification about the difference between executive orders and signing statements and had nothing to do with the general topic of military service.

[lapfog_1]

40. My comment on signing statements???

You are the idiot that brought up signing statements. I wrote that they are irrelevant. How is that "changing the subject"?

And yes, I did read the entire article. The salient point is that the UCMJ (under which the military operates) is not "rules" but LAW. And the UCMJ still has "homosexual behavior" as conduct that can lead to dismissal from the military. And, as others in this very sub-thread have pointed out, there is also actual US Code that prohibits gays from openly serving.. 10 USC 654 (b). Pointed out to you in posts 31 and 36.

Until the LAW is changed by CONGRESS, all President Obama can do is rescind the DADT executive order, which would put gay members of the military at MORE RISK of being separated from their service than they are now.

In other words, the military could start investigations of the private conduct of their service members without any formal complaint and without the service member openly proclaiming their sexual orientation.

DADT stands for DON'T ASK (as in the military NOT asking about) DON'T TELL (as in the service member not telling anyone in the military their sexual orientation). It did NOT change the law or the UCMJ. The President (at least the ones I *like*) should not issue executive orders that break the law. DADT comes close. An new executive order to "allow gays to serve openly" or anything like that would break the law.

You want the law to change (as *I* do) then complain about Congress not having the backbone to pass a law that removes the prohibition.

But don't put this on the President (any President). Presidents are not monarchs.

[MiniMe]

31. Here, link included

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy regarding gays and lesbians serving openly in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though mere suspicion of homosexual behavior can cause an investigation.

more at the link

[struggle4progress]

36. Here is the ugly text: 10 USC 654 (b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated from

the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that -
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation; (D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

Note the and in (1) joining the clauses (A)-(E). It is inexcusable, of course. I should further think it completely unconstitutional -- but, unfortunately, the courts have taken the opposite view

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Needed for repeal of DADT: 218 + 51. Democratic Party: 256 + 58

So, we need 218 Congresscritters to get repeal legislation passed by the House, and we have 256.

We need 51 Senators to get repeal legislation passed by the Senate, and we have 58 +2 Independents.

While the President cannot INTRODUCE legislation in either House, he can write it and have a Congresscritter or Senator introduce it FOR him.

It can be introduced in BOTH Houses and passed by Joint Resolution in a matter of days.

There is not the political will to do this however.

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

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

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Executive orders can't override U.S. law.

Separation of powers prevents that.

Eisenhower was able to desegregate the armed forces by executive order because there wasn't a law against desegregation, just past orders.

Now people have been sighting a loop hole that allows the President to override congressional firings of military personnel, or forced retirment at a certain age, etc. in specific matters of national security... but I'm pretty sure that still doesn't apply to actual laws, which is up for the courts to decide, and congress to repeal.

[DURHAM D]

23. Not much interested in anything you might say given -

that it was Truman not Eisenhower who issued that important EO.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. I stand corrected.

Must have been thinking of Eisenhower sending in the National Guard to enforce desegregation.

[cecilfirefox]

26. What the President CAN do...

Is to issue an executive order ending all investigations and effectively killing DADT from processing discharges. In other words, he can stop the enforcement of the policy but not kill the policy, thus allowing LGBT'ers to serve openly. I'm not sure though if that means that military commanders cannot punish open soldiers, airmen, seamen, etc.

As stated above if the President issued an executive order trying to over ride a law passed by Congress, it would most certainly end up in the Supreme Court and I suspect it would be struck down as unconstitutional. I do wish though that in his first week in office the above idea was one he would have implemented, I think it would have helped the repeal process later down the line.

[struggle4progress]

27. Obama won’t repeal ‘DADT’ on his own (18 Sep 2008)

By The Associated Press
09.18.2008 8:32am EDT

(Washington) Democrat Barack Obama said if elected president he would not try to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on his own.

Obama said in an interview to run in gay publications Thursday that he wants to work with military leaders to build a consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members in the armed forces. He said that wouldn’t be accomplished by attaching a signing statement to a military spending bill, a process that President Bush has used to set other military policies ...

Obama also declined to commit to have his attorney general support a lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gives states the right to refuse to recognize such marriages. Obama said he’s not sure the 1996 law would be overturned by the courts and he prefers a legislative solution.

http://www.365gay.com/news/obama-wont-repeal-dadt-on-his-own/

[cecilfirefox]

28. I have to admit something that would be disastrous for us...

would be to have the President issue an order and then for the military to publicly denounce it. Politically disastrous.

[Cid_B]

32. Absolutely...

nt

[Number23]

33. Is this the first time this article has been published on DU?

[struggle4progress]

34. If so, most have forgotten

[BR_Parkway]

38. He could temp suspend it, but can't just rescind a law - Congress has

to do that. And if he were to suspend it right now - it takes the pressure off of Congress to get rid of the law.

And for those who want to scream that I'm an Obamapologist.... I was in the Army before being separated for being gay. Personally I think he's forcing Congress to do their jobs and that it's the only legal way to do this for a permanent solution.

[lapfog_1]

41. Bing.

I'm sorry about your separation from the military. But you are absolutely correct in what needs to be done.

If President Obama vetoes any bill passed by Congress that allows gays to serve, then we will ALL turn our backs to him and he will be dead to me (and most progressive democrats). If he allows his White House to lobby congress or threaten a veto... same deal. And he if doesn't put forth "enough" effort from the Presidential "bully pulpit" to move Congress to pass such a bill for him to sign, well... that's the rub... what is enough? And when is soon enough?

I'm willing to give him a bit more time. It's not like he didn't walk into a shit storm of problems to solve, and I care about the Health Care Reform (sadly, more like health INSURANCE reform) too.

But I want the repeal of the law (such a repeal would make the DADT executive order irrelevant), and the repeal of DOMA too.

I think they both have to be done in his first two and half years (or even sooner if the midterms swing things back to republicans :sad: ). But it's been 10 months, I think I'm willing to wait a while longer.

I only wish that our Senate leadership would show some backbone.

[TheKentuckian]

42. It is in no way, shape, form, or fashion homophobic to know DADT is a law that must be repealed.

I don't see why someone would lob bombs around like that when in all likelihood the poster wants the same result you do but has a different interpretation of the path it will take to get there.

There is plenty of reason to be frustrated but that is no excuse to be an asshole to a likely comrade. The power of the executive branch is out of whack anyway without directing the President to pretend away law with very questionable authority. At minimum, I think that we ought to accept difference of interpretation of the law to refrain from lashing out with accusations of bigotry.

[deaniac21]

43. He is a master at stalling.