Page 20 of 61 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 605

Thread: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

  1. #191
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeJayH View Post
    so why can't the CiC just order it so, and it becomes so? he is the CiC right? not a dig at obama, but really a question
    I think that's what's pissing the Libbos off, the most. Dear Leader can't just say it and his words magically become the gospel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #192
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Quote Originally Posted by goldendog View Post
    You are right..the recession started the instant Bush decided to go on a record long vacation after being warned from several souces of a impending attack on our country.
    Not really.

    The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology [1]. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001, a period of eight months at the beginning of President George W. Bush's term of office.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession]Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No it can't. The UCMJ falls under the judicial branch, not the legislative branch; nor can the UCMJ be countermanded by an executive order.

    Scorpion's right on target. Ya'll need to listen up.
    No, he's absolutely not. The UCMJ is part of the US Code. The US Code is enacted by Congress. This is seriously some 11th grade Government class material here. I'm absolutely astounded that there are two people who are this misinformed.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I got a better idea, since we can't prove a negative, hows about you show us where the president and/or Congress can the criminal code, at will. We'll be waiting. I'm so looking foward to this one.
    This is a very obscure source, but I think it might be of some use:

    Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    ...

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    Does that clear things up?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    And, we all know there's a huge difference between adding to the code and subtracting from the code. Don't we?
    No, there's actually not.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I think you're all wrong and it begs the question: if it's so easily done, why hasn't our Libbo led Congress and Libbo prez just hauled off and done it? I think it's because it's not as easy as you all like to think. But, it could be because they are a buncha big ole pussies and don't have the balls. Which do you think it is?
    The latter, though I might be inclined to couch in in political realist terms. It's most certainly not the former.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Yeah, you should. You should show us what the law say that the prez can abolish laws, by executive roder. I mean, hell, by that logic, he could make rape legal.
    No, Congress is the only entity that could make rape legal, and only to the extent that it's not already covered by state criminal law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    The bottom line is this only the USSC can change the UCMJ and they have very rarely ruled any part of UCMJ Un-Constitutional.
    Please show me the language in Article III that gives this power to the Judiciary.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #193
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You are very, very wrong with that one, Jack.

    Several people in the thread asked to be shown where the USSC was given authority to write legislation (military code of justice, in this case). Someone back a few pages pulled up the link to the 1950 (?? was it 1950?) act that created the current code. It was not written by the Supreme Court.

  4. #194
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,514

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    ...

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    Does that clear things up?
    No, it doesn't. The reason being, that the rules and regulations and the UCMJ are completely different animals. Like when I was in the Army we were governed by Army Regulations and The UCMJ.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #195
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No, it doesn't. The reason being, that the rules and regulations and the UCMJ are completely different animals. Like when I was in the Army we were governed by Army Regulations and The UCMJ.

    The Supreme Court is not the body that writes either the Army Regulations or the UCMJ.


    Here's a wiki page on the UCMJ:


    History

    On 30 June 1775, the Second Continental Congress established 69 Articles of War to govern the conduct of the Continental Army.

    Effective upon its ratification in 1789, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval forces.[1] On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect.

    The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951. The word Uniform in the Code's title refers to the congressional intent to make military justice uniform or consistent among the armed services.

    The current version is printed in the latest version of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2008), incorporating changes made by the President (executive orders) and National Defense Authorization Acts 2006 and 2007.

    Uniform Code of Military Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-02-09 @ 05:13 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,695

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Would you like your foot prepared rare, medium or well done?

  7. #197
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No, it doesn't. The reason being, that the rules and regulations and the UCMJ are completely different animals. Like when I was in the Army we were governed by Army Regulations and The UCMJ.
    And the UCMJ is also enacted by Congress and falls under that same grant of lawmaking authority. Again, this is seriously basic stuff.

    You want another example?

    CAAFlog: New UCMJ amendment

    On the same day that President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, with considerably less fanfare he also signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 109 P.L. 364; 120 Stat. 2083 (2006).

    As usual, this year's authorization act tweaks the military justice system. Here are this year's provisions:

    Sec. 552. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE DURING A TIME OF WAR.

    Paragraph (10) of section 802(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 2(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking "war" and inserting "declared war or a contingency operation".
    Congress amended the UCMJ, Bush signed it, it took effect. The Supreme Court had no input or involvement. Period. This is not up for debate or subject to interpretation.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Several people in the thread asked to be shown where the USSC was given authority to write legislation (military code of justice, in this case). Someone back a few pages pulled up the link to the 1950 (?? was it 1950?) act that created the current code. It was not written by the Supreme Court.
    Actually when the National Def. Act of 1852 was enacted one of the items brought on line was the UCMJ, which were made up of then a various rules and regs of the three branchs of the Military when the UCMJ was enacted the USSC ruled on what was and wasn't Constitutional. Now please go and read what Section 925 Art. 125 states don't foregt up till about 10 Years ago it was still illegal in certain states, Texas is one that I can recall.

    As stated DADT was a Comp. if the DADT does go away then Section 925 Art. 125 come's into play, hence Mr. Obama can't order Section 925 art. 125 to go bye bye nor can Congress unless Congress is ready to re-write all of the UCMJ and if they decide to even try that then it would open up a can of worms that no one would want to see. Think about this folks if Congress goes and re-writes UCMJ then the President of the United States in theory could ask the USSC to throw out the 22nd Adm or any US Code/Law.

  9. #199
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And the UCMJ is also enacted by Congress and falls under that same grant of lawmaking authority. Again, this is seriously basic stuff.

    You want another example?

    CAAFlog: New UCMJ amendment



    Congress amended the UCMJ, Bush signed it, it took effect. The Supreme Court had no input or involvement. Period. This is not up for debate or subject to interpretation.

    No your wrong before any part of the UCMJ is changed the USSC is ask to look at the change. Oh and this goes for any Law that is new or being changed.

  10. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-02-09 @ 05:13 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,695

    Re: Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

    Scorp I'm still waiting for the link that shows that Clinton wanted to repeal DADT and couldn't?

Page 20 of 61 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •