What do you know, Obama CAN'T change DADT by executive order

[impik]

He just said so.

[Deep13]

1. Yes he can, under wartime stop-loss rules. nt

[uponit7771]

6. Link and quote? TIA

[Deep13]

11. "Waste not, want not." Franklin

Seriously, it was a discussion I saw on Rachel a few weeks ago. I don't remember who the guest was, but they were talking about DADT. It was after she aired the interview with the V.P. when he said they are enforcing DADT because of an agreement with certain senators in exchange for their votes on a legislative repeal. After those senators apparently failed to deliver, she had a guest on and they were talking about how there was no reason not to invoke stop-loss to avoid enforcing DADT.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. No, he can't change it - he can simply order the cessation of discharges under it.

It would still be in place, and as soon as the 'military need' was past, it would be in full place.

But since we seem to be in a forever war, he could order it not be enforced until such time as congress does overturn it.

[Deep13]

17. Right, that's what I meant. nt

[vaberella]

20. That's repealment. That's a minor stop which means people will be persecuted if he leaves office.

or when he does. Some people think it's worth the time. Whatever. I want the full load and we're almost there. The Repub senators are fucking around.

[jgraz]

26. So we should keep persecuting people because they might be persecuted in the future?

What color is the sky in your world?

[mkultra]

23. you clealry dont understand the rules of stop-loss.

[Deep13]

30. And you have offered no explanation to justify that statement. nt

[mkultra]

39. here ya go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

[villager]

2. But apparently his administration *can* ask for a stay of the court's order!

His administration can be oddly "active" when they want to be!

[ClarkUSA]

3. I heard that, too. Didn't he say there was something in the way DADT was written that made it so?

A transcript would be nice for clarification.

[DJ13]

4. Then the court gave him a way out, but he wont take it?

[uponit7771]

5. Yes he can, he has to punch himself in the left eye twice.....beyond that he's not trying.

[DrToast]

7. He doesn't have to change it. He can stop enforcing it.

[treestar]

10. No President could just stop enforcing a law

Would it be OK if Bush stopped enforcing OSHA regulations?

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Under the stop loss act passed a couple years ago he has full authority

to stop the discharges of any servicemen (and women) on the grounds of military necessity. That won't overturn the DADT law, but it would effectively stop its enforcement. All perfectly legal.

[treestar]

8. I do not see why people find it so difficult to understand

Obama wants to do it by statute.

They can disagree with that approach. But they don't have to jump to the conclusion he doesn't want to do it at all because he doesn't pick their method.

Makes you wonder.

[Deep13]

12. That approach has failed.

If this Senate won't do it, the next Senate sure as hell won't.

[vaberella]

22. That's the way to fuckin' end it for good.

That's the only way to end it. This is a bloody law. You don't "stop" it's processing. In order to do that you need to annihilate it. And the way to do that is to have congress do it. This is not a dictatorship.

[Deep13]

31. Obama is not supposed to enforce unconstitutional laws.

The is a court order holding that the law is unconstitutional. If he agrees, he doesn't have to appeal.

[vaberella]

35. Actually he is supposed to defend something that is writen in the constitutional.

You may believe it to be unconstitutional but when it's considered law and is part of the constitution the it must be in a sense defended.

[ZombieHorde]

37. Do you think President Obama should defend our anti-torture laws? nt

[vaberella]

38. If they are proposed to be illegal by a court of law...then yes, the government should defend it.

By saying something in the constitution is illegal, even if it is, I understand that the constitution would fall into a client of the DOJ. At which point the constitution would therefore need to be protected.

[Deep13]

32. You know I made this same argument when Obama refused...

...to bring Bush war criminals to justice.

[GodlessBiker]

16. I wonder if he thinks other civil rights issues should have been resolved by statute rather than ...

by court order. Think back on all the work courts have done to advance civil rights. Is he saying that, in general, all those decisions were errors and should have been fought to the last breath to give Congress time to act on its own?

Moreover, he seems to want to ignore the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. Judicial decisions are no less and no more valid than congressional decisions.

[treestar]

24. Then what is wrong with taking the question to the Supreme court?

The only thing I can think of is fear that the Supreme Court will find it constitutional. In which case, Congress would have to do it anyway.

One District court's decision can't end it for good.

The Executive Order can't either. That could be challenged or just overturned by the next Repub President.

[GodlessBiker]

27. Look at another issue: abortion. If Congress passed and the president signed ...

a law which greatly reduced a woman's right to an abortion. People challenge it and they win in the District Court; the Court issues an injunction finding the law unconstitutional, and prohibiting the government from enforcing it. Meanwhile, Obama becomes president.

Should Obama apply for a stay of the ruling because he thinks it would be better for Congress to overturn a statute it passed? Wouldn't it make sense for Obama to let the law die right then and there in the District Court?

[no limit]

18. A statue that would repeal the law. Guess what, a court just did the same thing

and this administration is going to appeal that.

The excuses are getting old and lame. Try harder.

[ClarkUSA]

9. Well, I believe the President more than anonymous bloggers who haven't got a shred of legal proof

[jesus_of_suburbia]

36. We know you do. Always.

:hi:

[jillan]

13. We used to bash the last administration for passing legislation by executive order.

We used to have FITS because the bsh administration acted like they were a unitary government.

So is it okay when it's our guy in the WH and executive order is used for the issues that we want passed, but it's not okay when it's one of them in the office passing legislation that we loathe???

Can't have it both ways guys :shrug:

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Obama has issued dozens of them already

All Presidents do. It is not the order, but what was in the orders that was the problem with Bush. So Obama has issued at least 65 of then to date. Can't have it both ways, they say.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Ya know 'he just said so' is not really a strong argument

Of course he'd say so. He also says marriage is for one man and one woman, and that those unions are 'sanctified by God' and others are not. He says many things that are based on his own beliefs, not upon a provable reality. Sanctified, he used this word in political discourse about civil rights.
You claim that him saying it makes it true. Do you also oppose equality in marriage rights, because he just said so? Or do you not agree with Obama on that one?

[jgraz]

25. And the president always tells the truth.

Just like with the Public Option.

Oh wait...

[chowder66]

28. The White House's Possible Strategy on DADT

.....But a White House threat to appeal the federal court ruling doesn't necessarily mean that the White House will appeal that ruling. Nor does the White House's request today for a temporary stay of that ruling while it "decides" whether to appeal. The United States has 60 days to appeal any ruling against it, and it might be wise for it to pretend it may appeal the ruling until the last minute, to increase pressure on conservative Democrats to toe the party line and vote to repeal the entire DADT law during the upcoming, post-election "lame duck" session of Congress."......................


....."Bottom line: the DOJ's and White House's saber-rattling about appealing Judge Phillips' ruling does not necessarily mean they will appeal. Even an actual appeal of that ruling wouldn't necessarily mean the White House is actually unwilling to let Judge Phillips' decision stand in the end. The White House's behavior so far is equally consistent with a negotiating strategy aimed at ramping up pressure on Blue Dogs and other Congressional Panderers-to-the-Right to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell for good. Only time will tell which one it really is."




Whole Article at link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/the-white-houses-possible_b_763348.html

[jgraz]

29. Wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9318975

[GeorgeGist]

33. As CIC he can suspend DADT ...

but if Congress doesn't repeal it, the next President could reinstate it.

[Unvanguard]

34. So, when he tells us that DADT will end on his watch, what does he mean?

Does he have that much trust in the Senate? Really? I hope it's justified.