On DADT, Obama must act

[Freeper]

alcibiades_mystery  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list       Sat Sep-25-10 03:00 AM
Original message
On DADT, Obama must act
   
As I'm sure some of you know, I'm probably considered an Obama "cheerleader" around here, one of those people who "blindly support" the President, as the saying goes. Now, needless to say, such charges are bunk, but they color our perceptions of other posters, as do the reverse little slogans. That said, it's certainly the case that the most persuasive and thoughtful critiques of the Obama administration over the last 20 months have come from people criticizing the various LGBTQ-related positions and actions of the administration. I've debated such critics and activists numerous times, and I've often walked away with a different position than when I started. I think the following is the case, as a result of their excellent argumentative efforts: 1) The Obama administration is, at the very least, soft-pedaling LGBTQ issues, and 2) it is doing so for narrowly political - when not utterly cynical - reasons. And that's deeply wrong, and is the greatest disappointment, in my view, for the administration.

As a matter of principle, I do not agree that Obama can dispel either DADT or its enforcement through the stroke of a pen. Or rather, I do not believe that it is correct to do so, even though it is certainly right to do so. These are the arguments I've had with people here that have not changed my position. I think - and will continue to think - that it is exceedingly dangerous for the executive branch to pick and choose which public and properly constituted laws it should enforce. Now, some people will say "Oh, but they didn't prosecute the Bush war crimes, so they clearly choose what laws to enforce!" This is, frankly, a silly point. It's clear that the executive branch has prosecutorial discretion on a case by case basis. It cannot, however, invalidate standing public law by blanket declaration, nor can it invalidate law by barring enforcement by policy, and I don't care whether that law applies to the military and thereby invokes the CiC status or not. It's a deeply dangerous and undemocratic notion. At the end of the day, as despicable as it is, DADT represents the currently existing law constituted by the people through their representatives. The current 80% opposition to it is irrelevant from that standpoint.

Put plainly, I think it is deeply wrong, and dangerous to the extent that it puts the Republic in peril, to allow - in any given case - the executive branch to pick and choose which laws to enforce. And I think we could have much more civil discussion on these boards if people on the other side of the argument saw this position not as mere pom-pom waving, but as, for their interlocutors, a core principle: absolute opposition to the theory of a unitary executive, or to the Schmittian theory of the sovereign exception. Even in those case when you most want to see it happen. Now, people often mock thios position and say "Oh, right, I forgot: Obama doesn't control his own Justice Department!" On this point, to my mind, he doesn't. The executive branch is tasked with enforcing and defending the existing law properly passed by the people's representatives. Bush could not order the Department of Labor and the Justice Department to stop enforcing OSHA regulations, even if he wanted to. It's standing law.

And yet, Obama must act. It is right to do so, even though it is incorrect to do so. It is right to do so even though it is deeply wrong and dangerous to do so. That is the situation we're dealing with here. It is not by any means a no-brainer. It pits a specific wrong committed against fellow citizens against a core principle of our mode of governance. And I think we need to reflect on that as we engage these arguments. I've seen far too many people on both sides argue as if this thing is easy. I don't think it is.

At the very least, I think the multiple court cases now putting pressure on DADT as a policy suggest it is time to call a moratorium on execution of the law until the issue is settled by the courts or Congress (i.e., the proper venue in our mode of governance for settling the matter). At the same time, I think it is proper to pursue the cases such that the matter is settled in the Supreme Court. These are not competing positions. When sufficient legal doubt exists on the constitutionality of a given statute (and that's a high standard that I think we've reached), a moratorium on enforcement prevents specific harms to people until such time that the proper branch can handle the issue. Don't mistake me: I have no doubt as a matter of my own personal politics that DADT was always unconstitutional. It is a disgraceful law. The question has to do with sufficient legal doubt. This is the George Ryan death penalty analogy, and I think we're there, now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9198078

This is why I have a problem with the gay rights people. Right now the economy is in the tank we have all kinds of nut jobs that want to kill us all yet the most important thing in the world is DADT to these people. This is like worrying about a carpet stain when your house just burned to the ground.

[crockspot]

Jeebus, if he could cut that down to one paragraph, I might actually read his opinion. My eyes glazed over halfway through the first paragraph.

[NHSparky]

The liberal ideal--you can't smoke a butt, but you can smoke a dick.

[Ballygrl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9198078

This is why I have a problem with the gay rights people. Right now the economy is in the tank we have all kinds of nut jobs that want to kill us all yet the most important thing in the world is DADT to these people. This is like worrying about a carpet stain when your house just burned to the ground.

Before I even read your comments I was going to say the same thing. The left are so blind when it comes to issues Americans are facing, they wonder why the mid-terms aren't looking good for them, you fools, the elections won't have to be stolen, the American people are hurting, their kids are in debt, your silly little social issues don't mean a hoot to people who can't find a job, and don't have enough money for food and utilities.

[dutch508]

At the end of the day, as despicable as it is, DADT represents the currently existing law constituted by the people through their representatives. The current 80% opposition to it is irrelevant from that standpoint.

That is all you need to read. They don't want rule of law, they want their rule. Of course, there is nothing like the stated 80% opposed to DADT. Leftists lie. All the time.

[TheSarge]

On DADT, Obama must act

Why?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I have no doubt as a matter of my own personal politics that DADT was always unconstitutional.

Suddenly the constitution applies to the military.

Who knew?

I guess that means I can call the president a traitorous, America-hating, piece-of-shit because my 1st Amendment rights matter more than the UCMJ's prohibition against disrespect for the CinC, congress critters and superiors.

Right?

But just out of curiosity, where in the COTUS is there a right to serve in the military?

And if I may, when did military service suddenly become such a noble calling that all humanity must equally partake when we could easily summon a thousand threads on DU that call soldiers poverty-drafted, mind-numbed, baby-killing, murderers and torturers? Only when gays go into the military does it mystically transform into a service deserving our deepest respect and admiration.

Excuse, but I'm going to go take a shower in the female barracks now.

I've seen this claim bandied about for a couple of weeks now. Any idea on its origins?
That is all you need to read. They don't want rule of law, they want their rule. Of course, there is nothing like the stated 80% opposed to DADT. Leftists lie. All the time.

[AprilRazz]

What I don't get is why do they care. It's not like any of the gays at the DUmp would be rushing out to join up anyway.

[true_blood]

This is why I have a problem with the gay rights people. Right now the economy is in the tank we have all kinds of nut jobs that want to kill us all yet the most important thing in the world is DADT to these people. This is like worrying about a carpet stain when your house just burned to the ground.

Very well said Freeper. (Same analogy would be the mooselims pushing their Islamic faith onto the Country.)
I think it's to cause chaos and confusion into the system. After all, the gubberment are the ones that brought up DADT, when we MUCH bigger problems to worry about.

[ColonialMarine0431]

Serving in the military is not a Constitutional right, it's a privilege. Following the gay lobby's logic, everyone, including a one eyed, one legged, 300 lb hunchback should be allowed in.

Pinheads.

[Freeper]

Very well said Freeper. (Same analogy would be the mooselims pushing their Islamic faith onto the Country.)
I think it's to cause chaos and confusion into the system. After all, the gubberment are the ones that brought up DADT, when we MUCH bigger problems to worry about.

Thanks, I just can't figure out why this is such a huge issue during all the crap that is going on.
This is almost as bad as congress holding hearings on steroids in baseball when that was the least important thing going on in the USA.

My personal opinion is if you are gay and wear the uniform it is better for everyone involved to not know including the gay person. If you are gay and want to be open about it wait until you are in the civilian world. A lot of our rights are suspended during service like even having the choice of where to live.

[Carl]

What I don't get is why do they care. It's not like any of the gays at the DUmp would be rushing out to join up anyway.

You have to remember that the first thing that always comes to a liberals mind is MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

[NHSparky]

I guess "prioritization" is not in the vernacular of the liberal.

[TheSarge]

I guess "prioritization" is not in the vernacular of the liberal.

Oh it's in their vernacular.  But it's just that...as always...their priorities aren't the same as the rest of the country's priorities.

[miskie]

Obama isn't going to do crap about DADT - as a matter of fact, I expect him to use DADT as a foil after he loses congress..  To paraphrase ;

"Dear friends in the LesBiGayDairyQueen community.. I tried to repeal DADT, but this awful Bushian congress refuses to move on any legislation. It's their fault. Vote Obama in '12. Thank you."

[true_blood]

Obama isn't going to do crap about DADT - as a matter of fact, I expect him to use DADT as a foil after he loses congress..  To paraphrase ;

"Dear friends in the LesBiGayDairyQueen community.. I tried to repeal DADT, but this awful Bushian congress refuses to move on any legislation. It's their fault. Vote Obama in '12. Thank you."

LesBiGayDairyQueen =