A federal court ruled this week that the enforcement of the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) must be halted, a ruling that the Obama administration is preparing to appeal. Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Gates has stated that ending DADT abruptly would have "enormous consequences" and that he believes that the decision should lie in the hands of Congress only after the Pentagon has completed their study of the issue.
As I discussed previously, President Truman ordered the integration of the armed forces by issuing Executive Order 9981 in 1948. Congressional approval was not required in 1948. In fact, if Harry Truman had waited for an assessment of desegregation's consequences and approval from Congress, does anyone honestly think we would have seen the desegregation of the military until the 60's?
So why is the Obama Administration pretending that this is an issue for Congress to decide? In 2008, candidate Obama stated that he would repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and put an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military. Now he is trying to have the judge's ruling against DADT challenged while simultaneously pretending that he doesn't the authority to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It is clear that:
- The president still has the authority to issue executive orders. The Constitution hasn't been amended on this issue, so if executive orders were constitutional in the days of Harry Truman, then they are still constitutional.
- The president has the authority to issue executive orders that overrule "Don't Ask Don't Tell" according to military law experts.
- The president is passing this hot-button topic over to Congress rather than issuing an executive order so he can wipe his hands of this campaign promise.
President Obama is very focused... on his re-election. Midterms-shmidterms he might be saying. He knows that very few people are going to make a decision about his re-election in 2012 based on his lack of action concerning DADT in 2010.
Leadership requires many traits, including the courage to take a position that is morally correct, even if it isn't politically expedient. Leaders defend their beliefs. Leaders don't pretend to lack authority when they know they are the decision-maker.
Whether or not you think DADT is important enough to be receiving the current media coverage, whether or not you think DADT should remain or be repealed and whether or not you voted for Obama, there is little question that the president has displayed a lack of leadership, shunned responsibility and exhibited cowardice on this issue.
Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman
DADT is mandated by law, so they only way to stop it is via repeal in Congress or the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional.
Civics 101: Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws, the Judicial system reviews the laws. The President cannot just repeal the law himself. He must defend the law in the courts because that's the precident.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#39679402
This is what I think:
1 or 2 federal court cases from a total of 94 Federal District Courts that rule something unconstitutional can't be extrapolated for ALL states or for everyone, because they can continue to be appealed and rulings can change.
HOWEVER...
If this is taken to the Supreme Court (where the buck ULTIMATELY stops/ENDS) DADT can no longer be challenged in court, I think not even by the Constitution or President himself (if he later becomes a homophobic Republican).
This is actually Ripe. So once this ruling is appealed, I think it'll go to one of the 12 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, then after that it is available to be appealed to the SUPREME COURT, which will make the final ruling because it is the highest court of the land.
I think this is correct. I could be wrong.
Here's a quick look at the federal court system, if you're interested.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070808053401AAGe7pk
Yup. Ya' know I always thought "change" implied that things would be... oh, I don't know... different somehow...
Who here on HP can possible disagree with this article, or the position of the Log Cabin Republicans:
“At the same time the Pentagon was complying with the injunction against enforcing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ President Obama’s attorneys were making the argument that compliance would be impossible,” said Christian Berle, Deputy Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans. “Log Cabin Republicans believes that the Department of Justice is severely underestimating the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. The United States military is the most powerful, most adaptable armed force in the world. It has dealt with racial integration and greatly expanded opportunities for women, and has grown stronger because of it. Open service for gay and lesbian Americans will be no different. Granting this stay would perpetuate a grave injustice against service members whose only desire is to defend our country honorably and honestly.”
I agree with you here, but that's largely the fault of Harry Reid the current Sen. majority leader who may not even be re-elected in a few weeks. I think Pres. Obama should have channeled former Pres. LBJ and applied pressure to break any filibuster attempts, particularly in the first 17 or 18 months when the Dems plus Independent senators Lieberman (CT) & Leahy (VT) had a filibuster-proof 60-member caucus. Once Republican Scott Brown took over deceased Sen. Kennedy's seat from Massachusetts, that opportunity was lost. But Sen. majority leader Reid still could have called the Republicans' bluff and made them execute a filibuster in front of the entire nation. He just lacked the guts, plus he didn't want to embarrass/alienate the conservative Dem senators (Arkansas' Blanch Lincoln & Nebraska's Bill Nelson, to name a few) who threatened to join the Republicans if they didn't get their way on gutting the Dem agenda, particularly Healthcare reform. I agree with you that it was truly pathetic.
He has made his personal views on this matter quite clear. However, as President, his personal views when it comes to enforcing the law of the land do not come into play.
Have we gotten so used to the last President only following those laws he agrees with even to the extent of finding ways to circumvent the constitution that this is how we actually think a President should behave? Are we no better than the teabaglicans who are all for law and order so long as it is just the laws and orders that they agree with?
I voted for this man and so far he is doing the best he can. Did you really think that racism is over or that as President he can just dictate which laws we should observe?
You know what? Instead of whining like a bunch of spoiled brats who did not get EVERYTHING they want or if they got something it was not good enough why don't you all shut up, grow up, acknowledge what HAS been accomplished and move forward from there.
What an ungrateful bunch we are.
This situation is different from Pres. Truman's desegregation of the military because racial segregation was simply an internal military policy subject to the Executive branch's power as commander-in-chief. But DADT is a law that the Executive branch is constitutionally bound to execute. There's so much misinformation out there on how this works it's truly amazing.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds coud have done them better. the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short, again, and again;because there is not an effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strives to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in the worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high acheivement and who at his worst, if he fails,at least he fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with these cold timid souls who know victory nor defeat.
Where's your spine?
A "D" by the name is no guarantee of support. There are all too few whose support consists of not much more than lip service. Our rights have been a plank in the party platform for a while now, but I can finish a count of those whose support I'd characterize as vigorous without running out of fingers.
As I always say: to Republicans, we're too important; to Democrats, we're not important enough.
1. Initiate appropriate rulemaking, pursuant to your authority to ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors, including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy. You should also provide that participating hospitals may not deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical professionals make about a patient's care or treatment.
2. Ensure that all hospitals participating in Medicare or Medicaid are in full compliance with regulations, codified at 42 CFR 482.13 and 42 CFR 489.102(a), promulgated to guarantee that all patients' advance directives, such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies, are respected, and that patients' representatives otherwise have the right to make informed decisions regarding patients' care. ...
3. Provide additional recommendations to me, within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, on actions the Department of Health and Human Services can take to .. health care issues that affect LGBT patients and their families.
The only solace Gays can take is that Obama has sold out everyone else, except for the GOP. Obama makes secret deals with the GOP and he seems quite steadfast in keeping those secret deals.
Second, the Justice Department must (by principle, if not by law) appeal the decision - because otherwise you would have a situation where ANY federal judge could declare any law passed by congress as unconstitutional - imagine if you had a Republican president and Congress & they wanted to overturn - Oh I don't know - say THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, or HCR !!! It would be a horrible precedent to set - and from here on out Republican President's would use it again and again to chip away at hard fought for rights.
And everytime they did - they would have the cover of saying - Hey look the Ds did it, so can we.