• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Scorpion89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No.

Wrong.

False.

Incorrect.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Holy. ****.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

And, the UCMJ is a criminal code and just like the USC, is subject to the same laws as far as changes, omitions and abolitions. If Congress and/or the president were able to strike Section 925 and/or Article 125, then Congress and the president would be legally allowed to legalize rape, as it applies to the military branches. Do you really think that the Congress and the president should have hat kind of unchecked power? I think you're smarter than that.

Read what Scorpion post about Section 925 and Article 125, then research those docs and you'll see what's going on.
 
apdst said:
And, the UCMJ is a criminal code and just like the USC, is subject to the same laws as far as changes, omitions and abolitions.
Click to expand...

What "laws" is the USC subject to in terms of changes?

I'll give you a hint - none (at least in terms of what you're referring to).

If Congress and/or the president were able to strike Section 925 and/or Article 125, then Congress and the president would be legally allowed to legalize rape, as it applies to the military branches.
Click to expand...

Correct (leaving all constitutional/civil rights claims aside)

Do you really think that the Congress and the president should have hat kind of unchecked power?
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of whether I think they should - they do.

I think you're smarter than that.
Click to expand...

I don't really know how to respond to this, so I'll just say "yes."

Read what Scorpion post about Section 925 and Article 125, then research those docs and you'll see what's going on.
Click to expand...

No. Scorpion has no ****ing clue what he's talking about, so I'm no longer bothering to try to explain it to him beyond cursory responses.
 
Scorpion89 said:
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.
Click to expand...


The Maine Supreme Court is authorized to issue advisory opinons (asking the court to look at a law before there has been a case to challenge it), but the United States Supreme Court does not have that authority. The USSC only issues opinions when a law has been challenged.

So, the USSC would have no role in issueing opinions on an action Congress took (or an Executive Order the President issued) to repeal a section of the UCMJ, or to add a new section to the UCMJ.
 
Scorpion89 said:
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.
Click to expand...


If the Congress were to repeal DADT, they would also repeal or rewrite S925 A125, or any other section/article that would present a legal obstacle to gays serving openly in the military.

Changing sections of code is not like changing amendments. States have to ratify amendments passed by the Congress.
 
RightinNYC said:
What "laws" is the USC subject to in terms of changes?

I'll give you a hint - none (at least in terms of what you're referring to).
Click to expand...

I got a better idea: Show us how an unfair, ilegal, useless, frivilous, unconstitutional, stupid, outdated etc. law in the USC is changed.






It's not a matter of whether I think they should - they do.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. It's called, "checks and balances".



I don't really know how to respond to this, so I'll just say "yes."
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you even had to think about that one...:rofl



No. Scorpion has no ****ing clue what he's talking about, so I'm no longer bothering to try to explain it to him beyond cursory responses.
Click to expand...


No, I think it's you sir, that is confused. You really need to read the articles that he referrenced. When you do, you will change your attitude.
 
Scorpion89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No new law is brought before the USSC until someone (normally a citizen) brings it before them. They then rule to see if it is constitutional. If every new law was to be brought to the USSC then the USSC would never get anything done.

Seriously you two have no idea how our system really works.
 
apdst said:
No, I think it's you sir, that is confused. You really need to read the articles that he referrenced. When you do, you will change your attitude.
Click to expand...


:shock: :doh :rofl


The dude's in law school. He knows what he's talking about here.
 
apdst said:
I got a better idea: Show us how an unfair, ilegal, useless, frivilous, unconstitutional, stupid, outdated etc. law in the USC is changed.
Click to expand...

I would have hoped that you and Scorpion saw this at some point in your lives, but I guess not.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ"]YouTube - Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law[/ame]

Strangely enough, they must have left out the scene where the bill gets pre-approved by the SC in clear violation of the case or controversy clause.

No, they don't. It's called, "checks and balances".
Click to expand...

Dear god, no it's not. Newsflash: not every power is split among all three branches. There are plenty of powers that are given to only one or two branches.
 
The sweet and merciless concept of irony is lost on apdst and Scorp.
 
RightinNYC said:
I would have hoped that you and Scorpion saw this at some point in your lives, but I guess not.

YouTube - Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law

Strangely enough, they must have left out the scene where the bill gets pre-approved by the SC in clear violation of the case or controversy clause.



Dear god, no it's not. Newsflash: not every power is split among all three branches. There are plenty of powers that are given to only one or two branches.
Click to expand...


I love Schoolhouse Rock!!!! :cool: I even bought a bunch of the vids for my daughter when she was little. :lol:
 
jackalope said:
If the Congress were to repeal DADT, they would also repeal or rewrite S925 A125, or any other section/article that would present a legal obstacle to gays serving openly in the military.

Changing sections of code is not like changing amendments. States have to ratify amendments passed by the Congress.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem: they can't just rewrite Article 125. To rewrite Article 125, they would have to send it to the SC, the SC deems it unconstitutional and then Congress writes a new Article 125.

Newsflash: there are ambulance, headline grabbing lawyers just slobbering at the mouth, waiting for Congress and the president to do something stupid with DADT, find a single soldier that doesn't like their decision, then that lawyer files a lawsuit on behalf of his client, on the grounds that the decision to change DADT is unconstitutional. Why? Because they left out an, "of", somewhere when they rewrote Article 125. Or, because he/she, under DoD regulations, has the right to serve in a safe and comfortable environment. Or, hell, you name it!
 
apdst said:
Therein lies the problem: they can't just rewrite Article 125. To rewrite Article 125, they would have to send it to the SC, the SC deems it unconstitutional and then Congress writes a new Article 125.
Click to expand...

Show me where Article III gives this power to the Supreme Court.
 
apdst said:
Therein lies the problem: they can't just rewrite Article 125. To rewrite Article 125, they would have to send it to the SC, the SC deems it unconstitutional and then Congress writes a new Article 125.

Newsflash: there are ambulance, headline grabbing lawyers just slobbering at the mouth, waiting for Congress and the president to do something stupid with DADT, find a single soldier that doesn't like their decision, then that lawyer files a lawsuit on behalf of his client, on the grounds that the decision to change DADT is unconstitutional. Why? Because they left out an, "of", somewhere when they rewrote Article 125. Or, because he/she, under DoD regulations, has the right to serve in a safe and comfortable environment. Or, hell, you name it!
Click to expand...


I'm going to just guess that you are not reading any of the replies. They CANNOT send it to the USSC for a quick onceover .... that would be unconstitutional. The USSC has not the authority to check over laws, or proposed changes to laws. They only have the authority to rule on a case that is challenged by parties that are ruled to have standing before the court to challenge the law.

There are no lawyers waiting to do what you said, because no such person would be granted a license to practice the law. They would fail the bar exam.
 
jackalope said:
If the Congress were to repeal DADT, they would also repeal or rewrite S925 A125, or any other section/article that would present a legal obstacle to gays serving openly in the military.

Changing sections of code is not like changing amendments. States have to ratify amendments passed by the Congress.
Click to expand...

No they can't, how many of you know how and why DADT came into being huh, I do my Father was one of the 12 Military Judges that help write the ****ing thing I might know a little bit more about he ****ing thing. Look DADT was a Comp. to get around Section 925 Art 125.

When UCMJ was enacted with the 1952 Def. Act it stated on how and when any part of the UCMJ can be changed and it left that up to the USSC. Now if someone in the Military wants to challange any part of the UCMJ they can by going thru an Section 867a Art. 67a
 
Scorpion89 said:
When UCMJ was enacted with the 1952 Def. Act it stated on how and when any part of the UCMJ can be changed and it left that up to the USSC. Now if someone in the Military wants to challange any part of the UCMJ they can by going thru an Section 867a Art. 67a
Click to expand...

Provide quote and link to where this is stated please.
 
Scorpion89 said:
No they can't, how many of you know how and why DADT came into being huh, I do my Father was one of the 12 Military Judges that help write the ****ing thing I might know a little bit more about he ****ing thing. Look DADT was a Comp. to get around Section 925 Art 125.

When UCMJ was enacted with the 1952 Def. Act it stated on how and when any part of the UCMJ can be changed and it left that up to the USSC. Now if someone in the Military wants to challange any part of the UCMJ they can by going thru an Section 867a Art. 67a
Click to expand...

"Now if someone in the Military wants to challange any part of the UCMJ they can by going thru an Section 867a Art. 67a"

Scorp is President Obama the Commander in Chief of all military forces?
 
Scorpion89 said:
No they can't, how many of you know how and why DADT came into being huh, I do my Father was one of the 12 Military Judges that help write the ****ing thing I might know a little bit more about he ****ing thing. Look DADT was a Comp. to get around Section 925 Art 125.

When UCMJ was enacted with the 1952 Def. Act it stated on how and when any part of the UCMJ can be changed and it left that up to the USSC. Now if someone in the Military wants to challange any part of the UCMJ they can by going thru an Section 867a Art. 67a
Click to expand...


There can be no section of law, whether military code or us code or anything else that gave the authority to the Supreme Court to change the USSC. The only constitutional authority they have with regard to changing the UCMJ is ruling a section unconstitutional if presented with a person deemed to have standing who has claimed harm by the law.

And then, they can only throw out an offending part. Only Congress, by writing new law, or the President, by issuing an Executive Order, can change the UCMJ.

And any changes they make would stand, unless and until one of them changed it, or a case accepted by the SC threw it out.
 
RightinNYC said:
Show me where Article III gives this power to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I have to show you where the SC court has the authority to rule a law unconstitutional? Again, I think you're smarter than that.
 
goldendog said:
"Now if someone in the Military wants to challange any part of the UCMJ they can by going thru an Section 867a Art. 67a"

Scorp is President Obama the Commander in Chief of all military forces?
Click to expand...

Yes he ius but he can't order an Excut. to remove Section 925 Art. 125, come on folks think about it when DADT can to being don't you think that Mr. Clinton would if you could had just wrote an Excut. Order to remove Section 925 Art. 125.

Use your brains folks before make a comment. DADT was a Comp. end of discussion. And I'm done with this thread since none of you really understand how the **** UCMJ works and what power the USSC has over it.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Article III Section 2
Click to expand...


That section describes judicial jurisdiction - meaning which Courts have the power to decide cases when a challenge to a law has been made. It doesn't give the Supreme Court authority to write any code, nor issue any advisory opinions.



Section 2 specifies the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except impeachment cases.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Scorpion89 said:
Yes he ius but he can't order an Excut. to remove Section 925 Art. 125, come on folks think about it when DADT can to being don't you think that Mr. Clinton would if you could had just wrote an Excut. Order to remove Section 925 Art. 125.

Use your brains folks before make a comment. DADT was a Comp. end of discussion. And I'm done with this thread since none of you really understand how the **** UCMJ works and what power the USSC has over it.
Click to expand...


DADT was a compromise ... which is why Mr. Clinton did not issue an Executive Order repealing the other sections. The compromise was, say nothing and you will not be prosecuted. Speak up, and those sections of the law will be in play.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Yes he ius but he can't order an Excut. to remove Section 925 Art. 125, come on folks think about it when DADT can to being don't you think that Mr. Clinton would if you could had just wrote an Excut. Order to remove Section 925 Art. 125.

Use your brains folks before make a comment. DADT was a Comp. end of discussion. And I'm done with this thread since none of you really understand how the **** UCMJ works and what power the USSC has over it.
Click to expand...

Scorp you keep repeating this Clinton claim but for the third time post a freaking link that shows Clinton wanted to repeal it and was barred by law from doing so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom