Hypothetical

[alcibiades_mystery]

Obama nullifies DADT through the dubious executive mechanisms stated throughout this board. He throws it back to Congress, insisting on clear guidance before any further investigations or separations take place.

Scenario 1: Congress refuses to act, or can't get any revision of the public law through committee (thereby offering a de facto affirmation of DADT). What then?

Scenario 2: Congress acts, reaffirming DADT de jure, and mandating its enforcement by the executive. What then?

Broader question: Is it wise to force Congress' hand if the outcome is either uncertain or leans against revision of the provisions?

[Kitsune]

1. There is no way Congress will reaffirm DADT. It's incredibly unpopular.

Even supermajorities of self-identified Republicans are in favor of repealing it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. So you say

If that were the case, it would seem easy enough for any member of Congress to put forth a bill, or even attach a rider to defense appropriations.

In any case, you're not playing the game. Consider the hypothetical. What if the votes aren't there?

[Neecy]

4. In a Democratic Congress?

Then I'd think I had to start voting for different Democrats...

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Well, it's YOUR Democratic Congress that refuses to touch this matter

:shrug:

[RoadRage]

47. Good Luck...

Remember Specter? The guy the Republicans shoved out because he wasn't far enough to the right? Well it seems that's what you want to do with Democrats who aren't far enough to the left.

I firmly support GLBT, and want them to have all of the benifits that marriage offers.. but in my ruby red state of Nebraska, I can tell you that I am NOT in the Majority. Wrong? In my opinion DEFINITELY.. but it is what it is.

Irregardless.. we have Senator Ben Nelson. Shockingly.. he's a democrat. Blue Dog? For Sure! But that's as close to a Democrat as you're ever going to see out of this state.. and it's shocking that he's been a senator as long as he has.

Part of the reason he's still a senator in this state is because he tests the pulse of his constituents.. and the pulse here would NOT be for a vote for GLBT marriage. If forced, he would vote against it.. not because it's right (IMO), but because it's what his voters would want him to do.. even some of the democrats.. and it's what will keep him elected.

So there are Dems even in a 60+ majority Senate that will vote against this if forced right now. I'm just saying.. it is what it is. It isn't right.

[Kitsune]

5. Your hypothetical is flawed.

It assumes that if Obama does anything but sit there like a lump on a log then Congress will reaffirm DADT, explicitly or implicitly, and the skies will fall. It's specifically designed to support what he's doing right now, which is essentially nothing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. No, it's not

I'd be happy to see Obama force any of these issues with Congress if I thought Congress would pass revisions, and I hope he does, and they do. I'm actually glad that so much heat (if not much light) is being produced by GLBT activists and others to get people moving on this. The hypothetical isn't constructed to support anything. I'm asking whether people would want this issue forced if it is doomed to fail in Congress, which is, I think, a good and relevant question given the many policy suggestions being proffered on this board the last few days.

[Phx_Dem]

56. I doubt it too, but public option health care is incredibly popular and

they don't seem to give a rat's ass. If you want a sensible, thoughtful response, don't count on Congress.

[dorkulon]

3. VERY hypothetical.

I think the "he's playing a chess game" meme is played out. The only people who really oppose ending DADT already think he's a secret Muslim sent to destroy us. If Obama ends DADT, congress will do nothing. They never do anything.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. I don't like the idea of an executive picking and choosing which laws to enforce

Even the harshest critics of Obama on this board assert that any suspension of the clearly stated public law would have to premised on forcing Congress' hand if it is not merely the executive branch run wild. So, the idea that Obama could suspend the law indefinitely by executive decision is itself a "meme" that is "played out," and an extremely dangerous and thoughtless one at that.

But again, play along. Should Obama force Congress' hand if the result will be a reaffirmation of the law? This has nothing to do with chess, by the way. I'm asking a legitimate question.

[dorkulon]

9. Yes, he should.

At least it would make clear to everyone who stands where on the issue. "Reaffirming" the law would change nothing--the same result as Obama doing nothing to begin with. But the premise is flawed. Congress will not reestablish DADT.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. So you don't want DADT actually gone

You want Obama to say that he wants it gone. Gotcha. That's smart politicking!

There is no "premise." It's a hypothetical scenario. Play along. What if Congress rebuffed Obama on any suspension of the public law?

[dorkulon]

11. What if they did?

Of course I want DADT gone. How would taking no action be better? In any scenario, the worst that could happen is that nothing changes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. No, the worst that could happen is that real legislation to repeal it

Would be utterly hobbled by half-assed reaffirmation based on stupid executive actions.

[dorkulon]

12. Here is why congress will go along.

"Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military."

75% of Americans, 66% of conservatives. Do you really think congress is so in love with DADT they'll go against those numbers?

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. So why are we waiting for the executive

You mean to tell me not one single Congressperson can introduce a measure for something this popular? You're upset that Obama isn't nullifying it by executive fiat when it has that kind of support!?! Holy cow. It must be the lamest legislative effort ever devised!

[Kitsune]

15. Because Congress still has Stockholm Syndrome from the Bush years.

For how long were they operating under a "You say Jump, I ask 'how high?'" framework?

That and the irrational belief that if they admit to a policy position anywhere to the left of Atilla the Hun, they get pilloried as out-of-touch liberals by the right-wing noise machine.

I really do think that's the problem, and Obama probably wants to fix it, but just sitting back and waiting for things to happen isn't going to get things fixed IMHO.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. I see a shitload of legislative initiatives coming out of this admin thus far

Not on this issue, no. Should there be? probably. It's not clear why big supporters of repeal in Congress would hesitate for one second to propose something so popular, in any case. Couldn't Barney frank make repeal of DADT law in under two weeks if the support is as the previous poster claims?

[vaberella]

52. You do realize that much of the same idiots who passed DADT and DOMA are still there.

So..I don't get your point. This is not a Bush thing...it goes as far back as the Clinton administration (and the Congress under him) that helped enact this mess in the first place.

[dorkulon]

17. Are the polls wrong?

Is that what you're suggesting? If Obama pushed congress on this, they would act.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. If the polls are correct, they wouldn't need to be pushed

It's very simple.

[dorkulon]

22. So who is behind these false poll results?

Seriously. Here's another: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/Conservatives-Shift-Favor-Openly-Gay-Service-Members.aspx

If the polls are wrong, why are they wrong? How are they wrong? Who is manipulating the numbers? What's their motive?

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. I'm not claiming they're false

If they're true, you don't need Obama, and you should pressure even ONE member of Congress to move forward. You can't really have it both ways. Laws are made by the congress. meanwhile, several posts ago, you want Obama to make law by executive proclamation, even though a congressional act would be easy enough given your own statement of its popularity.

[ZombieHorde]

26. "nullifying it by executive fiat" = Straw man.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man">Taken from Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate. I highly suggest this website to all who enjoy debate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Step 1: Definition

Step 2: Application.

Feel free to actually support your claim at any time.

Oddly enough, most people don't need a web site on argumentation to tell them that slapping a definition onto something does not an argument make. Keep trying, though.

[ZombieHorde]

29. You said the OP was about my OP, my OP did not argue for "nullifying it by executive fiat".

Therefore, the statement "nullifying it by executive fiat" is a straw man.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. I did not say it was about your OP

I said we had discussed the issue, so you knew what I was talking about.

Try again.

[ZombieHorde]

34. We discussed the issue in my OP. Your OP is haphazardly describing my OP.

Why are you making this personal?

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. My OP is NOT describing your OP

I don't know how I can say this more clearly.

It is describing a set of positions that have been all over this board for the last two days. How you arrogate those positions to your own personal opinion is a great mystery.

[ZombieHorde]

42. I guess there is just a misunderstanding. I should not have let being called "coy" stopped me from

pursuing your exact argument.

[ZombieHorde]

16. Can you please cite the "dubious executive mechanisms stated throughout this board"?

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. We had a whole conversation about it, ya big baby

Don't be coy.

[ZombieHorde]

25. I felt like your OP was about little old me, but I wasn't sure since my OP was simply pointing out

an existing law. I don't mean to be coy, but I have made the mistake of not asking first before.

The Commander in Chief has the legal right to suspend the law until Congress acts. The law is titled “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation.” It is a real law and is no more dubious than the power of veto. You may not like it, but it does exist.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. It is more dubious

And I don't like it.

And the president, as we've seen for the last 50 years, can apparently backdoor a ten year war without a Congressional declaration, and can backdoor a draft on the reserves through the very mechanism you're celebrating, and can do all manner of things that an executive should not be able to do. If we want to prevent future executives from running roughshod over the legislature everytime they claim "military emergency," it is probably better not to give them examples and precedents.

As for the OP being about little old you, you are one of many many many people parroting this particular Palm Center interpretation in some way, and certainly not near the best at making the point. I said reference to the dubious mechanism was around because it is just around. When I want to cite you, I'll cite you directly. Say something original and I might.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Why shouldn't the Commander in Chief be able to suspend a separation?

As for the OP being about little old you, you are one of many many many people parroting this particular Palm Center interpretation in some way, and certainly not near the best at making the point. I said reference to the dubious mechanism was around because it is just around. When I want to cite you, I'll cite you directly. Say something original and I might.


Why are you making this personal? You told me the OP was about my OP and not to be coy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. I never said it was about your OP

Stop inflating yourself.

Let's say the Congress is unhappy with military policies related to stop loss specifically for service personnel with documented PTSD. It's a hypothetical. They pass a law preventing it, given x, y, and z provisions, etc. The details aren't important. In your version, the executive can simply declare the law suspended and proceed with the stop loss by declaring some state of military need. This doesn't strike you as a usurpation of the duly constituted power of the legislative branch?

It's easy to think of these things for an issue we agree with. Yes, Obama should, with a stroke of the pen, exercise all the power of exception granted him under the law when it comes to LGBT in the military. But Bush shouldn't stop loss people into fourth and fifth tours, or some hypothetical future executive shouldn't throw people suffering from PTSD back into the combat zone. Law (and the state of exception) are about general functions and powers. Once you hitch your wagon to the specific, you open the door for all kinds of abuse. That's why these matters should be handled by the Congress, with the constitutionality of whatever it is they pass decided on by the courts. That's the system we set up. It's been perverted beyond recognition during the Cold War, with the executive becoming a kind of sovereign figure lording it over the people's representatives in Congress. Your solution is to leverage that outrage in order to accomplish particular ends. My position is that that power should be migrated back to where it belongs, even if that means we suffer on some issues that could be solved easily if only we had a dictator.

DISCLAIMER - I have been advised by a fellow DUer that this post and analogy may be read as "comparing homosexuality to a mental illness." Such a comparison is so beyond my normal range of thought that even the suggestion shocked me. Very obviously, and I'll be clear here, the comparison has to do with the powers of the executive relative to existing law and policy. It has nothing to do with the service personnel under consideration.

[ZombieHorde]

41. I understand the law can be used for evil, and I understand the next POTUS may be evil.

The hope is that we elect people with decent judgment. Leaders and judges need wiggle room to exercise judgment even though wiggle room comes with certain risks.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. No, absolutely not

This is Bush logic at it's finest. When Bush went around saying "Don't worry about the law, because we wouldn't do anything harmful," we all rightly yelled and screamed about that. I shouldn't have to rely on the decency of the executive - that is medieval liege thinking or fascism. I rely on the checks and balances built into the system, which operate transpersonally, and do not assume good intentions or acts by anyone. This is the principle that's at stake: do we let the executive do whatever he or she wants simply because we trust them? No, a million times no. We prevent the executive (and all the other branches, for that matter) from being in a position where we would HAVE TO trust them. That is the point of a constitutional and democratic system of governance. Any system of governance that relies on the goodness of particular people is throwback monarchy at best, fascism at worst.

[ZombieHorde]

46. "do we let the executive do whatever he or she wants simply because we trust them"

This is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that some laws have some room for judgment, such as the power of veto. Veto requires some judgment from the President.

Whether or not a law should have room for judgment should be based on each individual law. I am OK with the power of veto and I am OK with the “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation.”

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Veto has an override, and is enshrined as a check (with a balance) in the Constitution

And what you're claiming has "room for judgment" is in direct contravention of an existing public law. The "judgment" would be that the existing law is unconstitutional, which is a judgment properly designated in our system for the courts, or that the existing law can be erased for the purpose of military readiness, which is precisely the power grab and state of exception by the executive that we've allowed to happen since World War II. By representing it as mere "room for judgment" you do nothing but hide what it would really be - the executive nullifying existing law by fiat. This may be legal strictly speaking, but that's the problem. It's fascism. I know you don't like to say that's what it is, but that's what it is. Judgment on the part of the executive involves the modes and means of the execution of a law, not a law's existence or being in force. When it involves the latter, it is fiat power pure and simple.

[ZombieHorde]

50. "nullifying existing law by fiat" He is not nullifying it, he is suspending it.

Besides, even if he does not use the law, the law still exists on the books for the next President to use.

Do you want the law to be abolished and if you do should Obama lead that effort?

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. Of course I want the law to be abolished

Are you kidding me with that question?

And yes, Obama should lead that effort. Obviously. But not by "suspending" existing law (the only justification of which would be military necessity) and therefore promoting the sovereign exception as a mode of governance. He should lead on that effort by insisting that the Congress take up the matter in the next appropriation bill, if not sooner, by taking the case to the public, by discussing DADT and its negative consequences at press conferences, by encouraging congress members to attach repeal to relevant bills as they come up, and all the other methods that don't scream "I'm the Decider!" That is, the law should be abolished not through some dangerous mechanism thoughtlessly handed to the executive by a craven Congress - and used to extremely despicable effect over the last eight years - but through the proper channels through which laws are made and modified: the vote of the people's representatives in the legislative branch.

[tekisui]

21. I would stand and applaud Obama's leadership.

I don't think the House would go against it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Play along now

Say the thing goes down in flames, in September. And that its opponents therefore have a significant legislative victory "indicating" that the "will of the people" is for the status quo. How anyone could doubt such a scenario after what we saw in California is tantamount to political fantasy. But do you doubt that a hue and cry of blame unlike anything we've seen would issue from the same activists? I agree that doing something is better than doing nothing on this. I also think that wise people count their votes and go to the floor with passage assured before they start recklessly issuing ultimatums. Otherwise, you look like a fool, and your opponents have been strengthened in the bargain, and the measure is DEAD for the foreseeable future. The question is whether we want a symbolic victory or an actual victory. Actual victories require horsetrading, but they most of all require near absolute certainty that the shit will pass. Proceeding otherwise is beyond risky. It's stupid.

[dsc]

28. and we would be worse off, how?

I don't think it would play out this way but say it did, we would be where we are now, which is with DADT in the meantime some number of people wouldn't be seperated who otherwise would.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Well this is the real issue

We would be worse off if legislation that went forward with the votes in hand was prevented because hasty legislation failed. You know this sort of thing happens all the time whenever you're trying to make policy in an electoral setting. You go forward when you have the votes, because failure can prevent a positive effort from even going forward. It's not a fling-spaghetti at the wall sort of operation, this legislating. So, yes, I think we could be worse off if lousy and rushed legislation fails than if you wait for the votes to be in hand.

[dsc]

35. This isn't the Supreme Court where a bad precedent rules for years

You fail this year you try again next year and the next etc. We lost the anti bullying bill last year and are trying again this year in NC that is the way legislation works.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. I don't agree

I think going forward with a bad legislative strategy and no assurance on votes can kill any attempt to pass good legislation for years to come. The Clinton health care fiasco is clear proof of that.

In this case, you'd have a contemporary affirmation of the rule that would seem to issue from the legislative body/the people, which would at the very least provide tons of ammunition to your opponents. You go forward when you have your ducks in a row on something this clear cut. That's my position.

Obviously, I'm glad the activists and others are getting this out there and pushging pushing pushing. That'll help us get our ducks in a row. But there is a way to do this recklessly, and it can end in a miserable failure that prevents real reform. That's not a "go slow" argument. Go fast, by all means. But go fast successfully, when there's an opening. Not into a wall.

[rug]

36. If the CiC can get Chinese Moslem terrorists to Palau, he can resolve personnel rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Great

When the next CinC wants to suspend any rules for sending PTSD vets back into combat, we'll all have a bonfire and celebrate the powers of the executive.

[rug]

43. I never saw the connection between sending disabled soldiers into combat and homophobic policies.

Thank you.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. The connection is that we apparently want the executive

to be able to pick and choose anything he or she wants to do with military personnel, regardless of existing public law or even new law. You can try to snark that away, but that appears to be your position.


DISCLAIMER - I have been advised by a fellow DUer that the analogy to PTSD may be read as "comparing homosexuality to a mental illness." Such a comparison is so beyond my normal range of thought that even the suggestion shocked me. Very obviously, and I'll be clear here, the comparison has to do with the powers of the executive relative to existing law and policy. It has nothing to do with the service personnel under consideration.

[riderinthestorm]

49. Obama's already picking and choosing. He's not prosecuting for torture

as one great example. He could. He should.

But he's not.

He's not stopping OR prosecuting those people who participated in warrantless wiretapping as another example.

Obama has already set a precedent of picking and choosing. And his very obvious "choice" to let gay service personnel get discharged (when he has real and actual power to stop that), signals a lot.

[vaberella]

53. Uh..the Muslim terrorists weren't terrorists and were found not guilty.

Secondly they are not on American soil. So the two issues are mutually exclusive and there's no way to compare them. You're being ridiculous. Finding a place for the guilty or probably guilty parties in the US is what is the problem and hence the hold up of Gitmo. You'll note that when it comes to Obama's position on gitmo in that promises tracker this issues is stalled because of CONGRESS. Which is exactly what th OP is implying will cause problems for repealing (which I sincerely doubt---since Health care is being demolished systematically right now) DADT and DOMA.

[rug]

55. No shit. And if they're not guilty, let them on U.S. soil, it's not sacred.

As to the "probably guilty", that's a ludicrous classification and a zero basis to keep people locked up, let alone agonize what to do with them. It's none of your business unless you prove they are actually guilty. Try them or free them.

And it's pretty lame to claim the President can do nothing about Guantanamo because of mean old Congress.

Your last sentence? I think you were up too late typing it.

[clarence swinney]

54. dadt what is better?

Clinton asked General Colin Powell to give him choices on Gays in Military.

Colin met with all military leaders and came back with dadt.

He said it was the only policy recommendation which would pass Congress.

Military asked for DADT.

What is better?