Obama has made the argument that he wants to change the law itself on DADT, which would require both houses of Congress to repeal the act, as a more permanent way to stop this outrageous, absurd, un-American, and self-defeating policy.
So allow me to argue in his favor for the moment (as rare as that's become around here), by offering two points, after which I'm interested in your thoughts on this:
1) The Bush Administration's use of selective enforcement of laws, and signing statements to quietly declare it in many cases, under the "Theory of the Unitary Executive," was an abomination to the U.S. Constitution. If Obama were to sign a stop-loss order, temporarily repealing DADT by ordering that it not be enforced, wouldn't he be doing the same thing we all so despised when Bush did it?
2) Obama's argued that changing the law itself is a much more permanent way to assure that it stays changed, and can't easily be undone by a future President. To that end, doesn't not changing the policy by Presidential fiat keep the heat under Congress to pass the law that he'd need to sign to end this absurdity once and for all? It seems to me that if an Executive Order is signed it'll put the issue even farther onto a Congressional back-burner, and perhaps even to the point where the law won't be repealed at all before it becomes too late to do so, for example, in the event of a less equality-friendly Congress or President in the foreseeable future.
The BRAD BLOG : Don't Ask Don't Hurry