07/01/2009 08:46:07 PM EST

Take the DADT Fight to Congress

posted by wyotransplnt

The military brass will not be moved to disobey DADT until Congress - the legislative branch - overturns it.  Now is the time to put the pressure on the House to get legislation rolling.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

Obama supports repealing DADT, but he is not the law-maker.  Congress must make the rules (check your Constitution).  He's on board, but we need to pressure Pelosi to lead the fight.

Sign on and tell your friends!

couragecampaign.org

"Current Action"

< To Cenk: About Kim Jung's Sons | Mini Michael Jackson Immitators >
 Display:
Take the DADT Fight to Congress | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
And this is the most important thing ... (1.00 / 1)
That this congress should do? Piss of the Democrats in moderate or even conservative ditricts by pushing a gay rights/LGBT issue instead of handling other things like health care or the economy? Symbolism will only get Liberals so far... Take a number and get in line behind everyone else... :)

by bobo1 on 07/01/2009 09:58:58 PM EST

And furthermore... (none / 1)
Isnt the President the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in this country? We dont need congressional action on this - all Obama has to do is "say the word", and DADT is a distant memory, and gays will be allowed to openly serve in the military...

So why doesnt he?

Change we can believe in, right guys?

:)

by bobo1 on 07/02/2009 12:19:26 PM EST

That's not quite right (none / 0)

DADT is a law that was passed by Congress.  Even though Obama is Commander in Chief, he doesn't make any laws.  Congress will have to pass a law that overturns DADT. 

As CiC, Obama could issue an executive order to stay the firings of military personnel under DADT, but they could still get fired when he leaves office.  The law needs to be changed for anything permanent to happen.

Review your Constitution - only Congress has the power to make laws.  And to declare war, BTW.  I don't say that disrepectfully.  It's easy to forget which branch does what, especially when talking heads make it sound like the President is in charge of everything.  He's not.

In the past, we've had Executives who've taken more and more power from the Congress, and Congressional members who have let them.

It's really interesting to watch our newest Executive follow the Constitution by allowing Congress to do its job.

by wyotransplnt on 07/02/2009 04:17:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Possible Great News (none / 0)

Bishop Yvette Flunder is a dynamic bishop who also happens to be a lesbian.  She has spoken personally with Obama on this issue. 

"Flunder reports Obama will end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Written by Micki Carter June 30, 2009

"Brothers and sisters in Christ, I want to report to you the intent of the Obama Administration toward same-gender people in loving partnerships." The Rev. Yvette Flunder of City of Refuge UCC in San Francisco took the floor of the plenary session at the UCC's General Synod Tuesday afternoon to report that the President has expressed his resolve to end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the United States military, to end the Defense of Marriage Act and to refuse to sign a non-discrimination act that doesn't extend civil rights protection to transgendered people.

On Monday, Flunder had joined a group of 150 LGBT leaders at a White House meeting with President and Mrs. Obama. After the last business item Tuesday afternoon, Northern California Nevada delegate Kevin Manz asked the assembly to give voice to Flunder so she could report on the meeting with Obama.

"The President told us that it hurts the security of the United States of America not to include homosexual and transgender people in the military, especially around multilingual issues," Flunder said. "He told us to be assured that the end result of the commission investigating the policy is to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

She added, "I told him how glad we are that the President is also UCC."

by wyotransplnt on 07/02/2009 04:34:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you, Wyo... (none / 0)
I am aware of the legal system and the workings of our Constitution - however I was not sure as to how it applied to military affairs, as the chief executive usually deals with internal affairs of this nature at the Executive level - that being said, I hope DADT is overturned and gays will be allowed to serve openly, but please don't forget that if Congress passes such a law, the next Conservative/Republican to occupy the WH will most likely issue a signing statement to absolve the enforcement of such laws - and the endless cycle of BS continues! :)

by bobo1 on 07/02/2009 04:48:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A Congressional Law (none / 0)

is not an internal military affair. 

And if a law is standing, an Executive can't put a signing statement on it.  You put signing statements on new legislation if you are the President at the time.

I'm sorry, but it appears that you're not that aware of the detailed workings of our government.  

You're incorrect on this one.

 

by wyotransplnt on 07/02/2009 04:53:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
a signing statement... (none / 0)
Is simply an internal Executive memo that limits or details the enforcement policies of a given law - Bush implemented signing statements on pre existing laws all the time - that's why Liberals always got so pissed about it... The next Republican president can simply order the DOJ or JAG corps not to enforce any law they want - that's the bad thing about chief executive power... Think about it... :)

by bobo1 on 07/02/2009 05:00:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Um, (none / 0)

This is what I found on signing statements:

 "A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed along with the bill in United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN)."

From Wikipedia, and the article's pretty well documented.

Libs got pissed about Bush's signing statements because he did them for just about every piece of legislation the Dems passed in Congress from 2006-2008, at least when he wasn't vetoing them. 

The president CAN'T order DOJ or JAG to do whatever they want because of checks and balances.  Or, he could order it, but it wouldn't stand in the Supreme Court and/or Congress has the right to investigate and take action.

The Founding Fathers were smart.  Checks and balances.  The Executive is not the most powerful branch of our government.

by wyotransplnt on 07/02/2009 05:32:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didnt say it was Legal... (none / 0)
But its done all the time - if you don't believe me, just ask anyone who has workes for any of the Executive departments or military justice - happens all the time - word comes down from on high, and laws are passed over and ignored at the will of the chief executive... :)

by bobo1 on 07/02/2009 06:13:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay... (none / 0)

I'll take your word for it.

Still - Congress needs to repeal DADT, and soon!

by wyotransplnt on 07/02/2009 06:51:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree, (none / 0)
But they better have something solid to replace it or the whole problem will be doomed to replay itself in the coming decades... :)

by bobo1 on 07/02/2009 07:06:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Take the DADT Fight to Congress | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: