• 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"

The Dept.of Def and the United States Supreme Court, neither Congress nor the President had any say in what was put into the UCMJ

No.

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.

Really so may I ask you how long have you been working for the DoD and at the Pentagon huh.

Question do any of you actually know what Section 925 Art. 125 is huh. Or better yet do any of you know how the comp. came between Mr. Clinton/USSC/DoD for DADT.

Before any of you shot off your mouths I suggest you go and read what Section 925 Art 125 is then we can talk.

I suggest you read the Constitution and try to figure out which branch controls the military.
 
Scorpion...you are wrong. Period. You are making yourself look silly with your continuing argument.

I'll ask you the same question how long have you been working for the DoD and how long have you been at The Pentagon huh, I might know a little bit more on said subject. He can't change DADT that was part of the Comp. when Mr. Clinton order DADT be enacted.
 
No.





I suggest you read the Constitution and try to figure out which branch controls the military.

Hmmlet see the Excut. controls the actaul orders, the Legst. controls the Budget and the Judc. control over seeing the UCMJ hence all three of them really folks.
 
I'll ask you the same question how long have you been working for the DoD and how long have you been at The Pentagon huh, I might know a little bit more on said subject. He can't change DADT that was part of the Comp. when Mr. Clinton order DADT be enacted.

I learned military law from a former Deputy Secretary of Defense. I'm betting he was more familiar with the ins and outs of the UCMJ than you are.
 
I'll ask you the same question how long have you been working for the DoD and how long have you been at The Pentagon huh, I might know a little bit more on said subject. He can't change DADT that was part of the Comp. when Mr. Clinton order DADT be enacted.

Dude....really. I'm trying to save you the embarassment as many others have. You choose not to take the advice....that's on you. :3oops:
 
I'll ask you the same question how long have you been working for the DoD and how long have you been at The Pentagon huh, I might know a little bit more on said subject. He can't change DADT that was part of the Comp. when Mr. Clinton order DADT be enacted.

So you are saying it took an executive order to enact it, but an executive order cannot repeal it?
 
Obama can also issue an executive order abolishing Art. 125. Of course, there is a little bit of a hypocritical "gotcha" in doing this, because it would tend to go against Obama's opposition of the unitary president theory. But Bush opened up the door for him on this one. Like him or not, Bush frequently WAS the decider, based on his own use of executive orders. Obama could be a decider too, if he wants to be. And since the Democrats control Congress now, there won't be nearly as much opposition to an Obama executive order as there was to Bush's executive orders. Question is, does Obama have the guts to do it. Bush had the guts, and did it.

No he can't order any part of the UCMJ to be abolished it would be a violation of the US Constitution only the USSC can over turn any part of the UCMJ.
 
So you are saying it took an executive order to enact it, but an executive order cannot repeal it?

Yes have any of you actually read the UCMJ ???? You do understand that unlike normal US Law the UCMJ are held to a different stander and when DADT was enacted it took a Comp between Congress/DoD/USSC and Mr. Clinton.
 
No he can't order any part of the UCMJ to be abolished it would be a violation of the US Constitution only the USSC can over turn any part of the UCMJ.

What article of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to enact or amend provisions of the US Code? Let's see the specific language.
 
No he can't order any part of the UCMJ to be abolished it would be a violation of the US Constitution only the USSC can over turn any part of the UCMJ.

That is not the case at all.

And of course, I am arguing that, if Obama wants to embrace the use of executive orders the way Bush did during his presidency, he would be able to end DADT all on his own. If Congress disagreed strongly enough, THEN the Supreme Court could get involved, but only to determine whether the Unitary Executive theory was Constitutional or not.
 
I learned military law from a former Deputy Secretary of Defense. I'm betting he was more familiar with the ins and outs of the UCMJ than you are.

Hmm you sure about that my Dad was a JAG Lawyer and JAG Judge the last 10 Years of his Military Service.
 
Hmm you sure about that my Dad was a JAG Lawyer and JAG Judge the last 10 Years of his Military Service.

So what? My stepfather was an ophthalmologist, but I know nothing at all about eye surgery.
 
Hmm you sure about that my Dad was a JAG Lawyer and JAG Judge the last 10 Years of his Military Service.

Yeah, and he'd no doubt be slapping his forehead over this exchange.
 
No he can't order any part of the UCMJ to be abolished it would be a violation of the US Constitution only the USSC can over turn any part of the UCMJ.

READ THIS:

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47), is the foundation of military law in the United States.

Uniform Code of Military Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large and abbreviated Stat., is the official source for the laws and concurrent resolutions passed by United States Congress.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large]United States Statutes at Large - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Hmm you sure about that my Dad was a JAG Lawyer and JAG Judge the last 10 Years of his Military Service.

Your dad's name could be Military J. Justicelawyerson and it wouldn't change the fact that you're completely wrong about this.
 
Your dad's name could be Military J. Justicelawyerson and it wouldn't change the fact that you're completely wrong about this.

:rofl

That would be a sweet name.
 
This is why DADT can't be changed.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

End of the discussion the reason why DADT was enacted was because of this section. The USSC has refused to rule this or any part of the UCMJ Un-Constitutional hence the reason DADT was enacted christ folks go and ****ing learn the UCMJ
 
My Dad directly worked with all of the apollo missions but that doesn't mean I'm taking off too the moon anytime soon......:lol:
 
This is why DADT can't be changed.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

End of the discussion the reason why DADT was enacted was because of this section. The USSC has refused to rule this or any part of the UCMJ Un-Constitutional hence the reason DADT was enacted christ folks go and ****ing learn the UCMJ

Question: Who enacted 925 Art. 125?
 
this is why dadt can't be changed.

925. Art. 125. Sodomy
(a) any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

End of the discussion the reason why dadt was enacted was because of this section. The ussc has refused to rule this or any part of the ucmj un-constitutional hence the reason dadt was enacted christ folks go and ****ing learn the ucmj

Statutory law can be changed at anytime by the US Congress.
 
READ THIS:



The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large and abbreviated Stat., is the official source for the laws and concurrent resolutions passed by United States Congress.

United States Statutes at Large - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AND READ THIS SECTION OF THE UCMJ

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

End of discussion DADT can't be changed.

So I expect all of you folks who work at the Pentagon to stop by my office on Tues. PM me and I'll give you my office and floor # and then we can have anice chat with some of the JAG folks at the Pentagon.
 
This is why DADT can't be changed.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

End of the discussion the reason why DADT was enacted was because of this section. The USSC has refused to rule this or any part of the UCMJ Un-Constitutional hence the reason DADT was enacted christ folks go and ****ing learn the UCMJ

Again, you seem to keep avoiding the discussion of the use of an executive order by the President. Again, the only way the Supremes could get involved would be to decide on the issue of the Unitary Executive. Again, Bush used executive orders frequently, thus opening the door for Obama to issue one to end Article 125.
 
Back
Top Bottom