Dec 092010
 

I keep hearing that Obama, as Commander in Chief, should simply kill DADT by executive order. As much as I’d love to see it, it’s more complex than than.  First, ending DADT is not that same as Truman ending segregation in the military.  Segregation was always an executive branch policy.  There was no law passed by Congress mandating it.  The President does not have the Constitutional authority to issue an executive order that contradicts the law.  Just because Bush did it 478 times weekly, that does not make it OK.  Even if he could, how long would his order hold up, if a Republican gains the White House?  The best way to end DADT is for Congress to repeal it.  The next best is for the courts to declare it unconstitutional.  The problem remains Republican obstruction.

9dadt1Senate Republicans are making a bad and dangerous gamble in stalling the inevitable end of the military’s useless “don’t ask, don’t tell” anti-homosexual policy.

Arizona Sen. John McCain continues to lead an increasingly shrinking minority in the Senate bent on forcing their will on a huge majority of Americans, a huge majority of members of the military, a growing list of fellow conservatives, and even a huge majority of fellow members of the Senate. That overwhelming majority spread across the country has made it unequivocal that they want gays to serve openly in the U.S. military.

McCain and company have run out of excuses to continue stonewalling the measure.

Not only have a vast number of military and Pentagon leaders agreed that no harm will come to troops or readiness by ending the ridiculous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, but an extensive study of the issue by the Pentagon assures all Americans that this is only a big deal to the close-minded politicians holding it up, none of whom will serve in the military alongside a gay soldier.

The rest of the country has moved beyond the dark days of homophobia that harken back to Jim Crow laws and a time when members of Congress just like McCain made almost identical arguments about integrating blacks and whites in the military.

This vastly overdue change is in the works and can’t be stopped. It can only be repeatedly delayed by stonewalling bullies… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Aurora Sentinal>

Even though it has become clear that the Senate whip-count for repeal is at least 60 votes, negotiations broke down last night.

9dadtThe negotiations being over how many amendments Republicans can offer to the Defense Authorization bill and how much time they’d get to debate them.

Of course this is a part of the ongoing efforts by Republicans to run out the clock. But as I argued earlier, Harry Reid must not let them do it.

… if Senate Republicans insist they need the time, give it to them. Take away their stated reason for not having a vote and let them have the national stage for two weeks to make their case — because God knows they’ll never be able to keep a lid on the bigotry fueling their opposition for that long.

And again:

Harry Reid may want wrap things up and get home for the holidays, but the fact is this lame-duck session can run right up until the 112th Congress is sworn in on January 5.

We’ve heard a lot of whining from Senate Democrats in recent days about wanting to fight — well here’s their chance. They need to put down the eggnog, put off their extended holiday break and fight to end the military’s official policy of discriminating against millions of Americans.

Democrats need to fight. For once… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

Keith Olbermann discusses the lame duck Senate with Chris Hayes.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ben Nelson and Leg Hound Harry Reid want to go home?  They have 60+ votes.  They should stop whining and do their job… for once.

Share

  8 Responses to “DADT: Is 60+ Votes Still Too Little?”

  1. You’re right about Congress being the best path to repeal DADT, even though that is no comfort to the gay and lesbian community. I have to keep some of my remaining Hope alive in that five years from now we will all be asking what the big fuss was about.

    Given McCain’s dementia, I would not be surprised that even he will be claiming he was always for repeal.

  2. I don’t think the republicans would return to DADT if Obama ended it with an executive order. Even if Congress passes a law doing away with it, if the take the White House in 2012, the will probably have the House and Senate also, so if the really wanted to, they could just pass another law re-instituting it.

    We need to act on what is right now, not what could be wrong in the future.

    • Jerry, they would gave a rationale for canceling an unconstitutional executive order, not for passing a whole new law. I agree we have to act on what’s right now, but if we ignore the Constitution to do it, how are we any better that the Republicans?

  3. While agreeing that repealing DADT is by far the best route (followed by the courts overruling it), and agreeing that Obama can’t overturn laws he simply doesn’t like by fiat, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some Executive options WRT DADT.

    Ten years after DADT, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v Texas that violation of the privacy rights of gay couples is unconstitutional. Therefore, laws that impinge upon the sexual-privacy rights of gay couples are presumed unconstitutional if they have no rational state basis to justify them. Since Mullen, Petraeus and other top military leaders have come out against DADT, Obama could simply announce that, absent state interest to justify DADT, it is now unconstitutional and will no longer be enforced.

    Obama also has wide latitude in simply using his Executive power to decide how the laws will, or will not, be executed. And if Obama really felt he needed some cover, he could allow gays to serve while waiting for the courts or Congress to act by using his Stop-Loss power. (Stop-Loss is a law enacted by Congress in 1984 to override military discharges if troops are needed.)

    But what really rankles is after a federal district court ruled in Log Cabin Republicans v United States that the current policy against gays was unconstitutional that Obama then allowed the DOJ to appeal that decision. Still in all, it’s best if Congress rids us of DADT.

    • The other point I intended to make, but forgot to make, because my eyes needed toothpicks at that point, is that if Obama pulls the plug on enforcement. Congress will just bwaaaack-buk-buk-buk home.

  4. Put it up for a vote and see what happens.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.