• 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"

goldendog said:
White House projects record deficit for 2009 - CNN.com

President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year. View a history of the government deficits and surpluses »

The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue in part because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy.

A Democratic point man on the budget, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, blasted the administration for its "reckless fiscal policies," blaming the president's tax cuts for driving the government into deficit and saying Bush "will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history." Watch Conrad call the federal debt Bush's legacy »

Conrad, who chairs the Senate's budget committee, accused the president of "squandering" the surplus he inherited from President Bill Clinton and said the increased debt the government has taken on to cover the deficit has undermined the value of the dollar and hurt the overall economy.

"If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze," Conrad said. "With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office."


_________________________________________

Read it Prof...it took eight years and Obama is going to repair this wound in four....

You guys are going to be toast for years to come.
Click to expand...

obama never should have made such a stupid promise, then

makes him look like another person who simply doesn't know what he's talking about

same as ending detention, ending renditon, closing gitmo, reversing the patriot act, prosecuting cheney, cap and trade, pulling out of iraq, not taxing the middle class, not taxing benefits, pledging card check, ending don't ask don't tell, not hiring lobbyists and cheats, putting legislation online, being transparent, winning in afghanistan, paygo, ending earmarks...

he's responsible, he's president

he's NOW

everyone knows why bush lost

round and round

you're dizzy, dog
 
Last edited:
Silly and dizzy would be thinking that the President would actully state such a goal only using his OWN judgements as the reasons for doing so.

Do you think maybe he consulted with the finest economic minds this nation has to offer and then set his goal? Or do you think he shunned all of them like you know who did and relied on "THE BRAIN" Karl Rove?
 
finest economic minds...

LOLOL!

what an idiot

the finest economic mind, i mean
 
The Prof said:
finest economic minds...

LOLOL!

what an idiot

the finest economic mind, i mean
Click to expand...

I agree Bush was an idiot for conducting himself in such a manner while disreguarding the interests of the nation as a whole. To save his political ass and his family's legacy....what a loser.
 
/que romantic music.
Moderator's Warning:

You guys should get a room.

I know the perfect place, you should too.

Back to topic please.
 
That's funny, vauge. You need to come out more often. Serious, the others' warnings are actually getting boring; just between you and me.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
What? Congress can change the UCMJ whenever it likes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Show me where in our laws it says this. Exactly. Link and all. I keep hearing you and scorp say this but neither of you has given a link to prove this that I have seen.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Show me where in our laws it says this. Exactly. Link and all. I keep hearing you and scorp say this but neither of you has given a link to prove this that I have seen.
Click to expand...

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.
 
What does this mean for those who were removed from service by article 15?
Since marking the homosexual down as having committed homosexual conduct is the only way to expel them... is there no way these people will have the right to re-enter the military?

Does anyone that knows more than me know?
 
SE102 said:
What does this mean for those who were removed from service by article 15?
Since marking the homosexual down as having committed homosexual conduct is the only way to expel them... is there no way these people will have the right to re-enter the military?

Does anyone that knows more than me know?
Click to expand...

Nothing, because no one was removed by Article 15. Be that as it may, those people were lawfully cashiered from the service, because laws at that time prevented gays from serving openly in the miltiary.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait...you said yourself that only the judicial branch has the authority to change the UCMJ and now you're saying that you "can't prove a negative"? How can it be a negative? They either can or they cannot. The only way that it would be a negative is if they cannot because those powers were not given to them.

As for the Congress and Senate (it takes them both to change/add/take out laws) being able to change criminal code all you have to do is read the Constitution.

As for the President I'm not sure how executive orders work and hence have not commented on that aspect in this thread.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Wait...you said yourself that only the judicial branch has the authority to change the UCMJ and now you're saying that you "can't prove a negative"? How can it be a negative? They either can or they cannot. The only way that it would be a negative is if they cannot because those powers were not given to them.

As for the Congress and Senate (it takes them both to change/add/take out laws) being able to change criminal code all you have to do is read the Constitution.

As for the President I'm not sure how executive orders work and hence have not commented on that aspect in this thread.
Click to expand...

You asked for me to show you where the Congress and the president can't change the criminal code. I can't prove a negative. It's now upon you to show us where it is written that they can. Just give us some historical exmaples of it taking place; that's all.

Look, there's he good and solid reason that PBO hasn't abolished DADT: he can't. He's really spoofing people when he makes it sound as if he's going to just get rid of it with a stroke of his pen.
 
apdst said:
Nothing, because no one was removed by Article 15. Be that as it may, those people were lawfully cashiered from the service, because laws at that time prevented gays from serving openly in the miltiary.
Click to expand...

PLease clarify when you say nobody was removed by article 15. Personal experience tells me otherwise (I must not be clear on some detail).
 
Explain why you can't prove this so-called negative?Surely you can show where congress and the Commaner In Chief can't change stated rules that guide the UCMJ?
 
Last edited:
SE102 said:
PLease clarify when you say nobody was removed by article 15. Personal experience tells me otherwise (I must not be clear on some detail).
Click to expand...

Because Article 15 isn't what's used to cashier, or otherwise discharge a service member. Article 15 applies to non-judicial punishment, only.
 
goldendog said:
Explain why you can't prove this so-called negative?Surely you can show where congress and the Commaner In Chief can't change stated rules that guide the UCMJ?
Click to expand...

Show us where they've done it. Give an example. If it's as easy as you say for them to do so, coming up with evidence should be a piece of cake. Surely they've done it before. I mean, hell, if Congress of the president can just change laws at will, what do we need a judicial branch?
 
apdst said:
Show us where they've done it. Give an example. If it's as easy as you say for them to do so, coming up with evidence should be a piece of cake. Surely they've done it before.
Click to expand...

They changed it when they implemented DADT in the first place.

apdst said:
I mean, hell, if Congress of the president can just change laws at will, what do we need a judicial branch?
Click to expand...

To interpret the laws, and to make sure that they are constitutional. The judicial branch plays no part whatsoever in actually writing the laws. God, I can't believe that there are people who A) don't know this basic civics stuff, and B) will argue against it with such certitude, instead of bothering to educate themselves. :doh
 
apdst said:
You asked for me to show you where the Congress and the president can't change the criminal code. I can't prove a negative. It's now upon you to show us where it is written that they can. Just give us some historical exmaples of it taking place; that's all.

Look, there's he good and solid reason that PBO hasn't abolished DADT: he can't. He's really spoofing people when he makes it sound as if he's going to just get rid of it with a stroke of his pen.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like the President has used executive order's to change the UCMJ before.

Changes to MCM (by Presidential Executive order Rule-Making under Article 36, UCMJ):

o Art 120 – Places burden of raising consent on the defense, adds degrees of rape and maximum punishment dependent upon level of force, and accused state of intoxication is not relevant. Threatening includes use of military position, rank, or authority.

o Art 125 – amended to be forcible sodomy and sodomy of a child versus all acts of sodomy, consent must be raised by defense (except children under 16 cannot legally consent), degrees of sodomy based on level of force and include use of military position, rank or authority.

o Art 134 – “Indecent Assault” & “Indecent Acts with a Child” that is a sexual act or sexual contact not amounting to intercourse or sodomy and was done by force. Makes defense raise consent. Degrees of indecent assault recognize the variations in level of force used.

o Art 134 – Sex-related Offenses. Collects sex-related offenses into one article including adultery, consensual sodomy that is prejudice to good order and discipline, prostitution, patronizing a prostitute, pandering, public intercourse/sodomy, sexual act. A crime if prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Additional sex-related offense such as indecent acts, indecent exposure, indecent language, wrongful cohabitation, fraternization, & indecent liberties with a child will also be realigned under this paragraph.

o RCM 1103A-Creates a new rule establishing procedures for review and guidance for limiting access to sealed exhibits and court-martial proceedings.

o MRE 412—The military rape-shield law (military rule of evidence 412) change is to make clear that the protections afforded apply to all cases involving sexual offenses where the focus of the offense is on the offender’s conduct.

o MRE 513 – Psychotherapist-patient privilege change to allow for confidentiality & privilege communications involving sexual assault and domestic violence during UCMJ and non-UCMJ proceedings. Current rule applies only to UCMJ proceedings.
Click to expand...

PDF Link
 
Kandahar said:
They changed it when they implemented DADT in the first place.
Click to expand...

And, we all know there's a huge difference between adding to the code and subtracting from the code. Don't we?



To interpret the laws, and to make sure that they are constitutional. The judicial branch plays no part whatsoever in actually writing the laws. God, I can't believe that there are people who A) don't know this basic civics stuff, and B) will argue against it with such certitude, instead of bothering to educate themselves. :doh
Click to expand...

What I can't believe, is how people can't make an argument without fabricating statements that their opponents never made. Totally blows my mind.

That being said, please, Mr. Civics, show us where the law allows Congress, or the president to change the UCMJ, at will. Specifically, show us where the president can change the UCMJ via executive order.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Looks to me like the President has used executive order's to change the UCMJ before.



PDF Link
Click to expand...

Looks like that document only proves that recommendations were made. That's teh title of the document, anyway.

However, nowhere does it show that laws were completely removed.
 
apdst said:
Looks like that document only proves that recommendations were made. That's teh title of the document, anyway.

However, nowhere does it show that laws were completely removed.
Click to expand...

If it can be added to via executive order it can be removed by executive order also.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the military's criminal code. It was enacted in 1950 and became effective in 1951. It has been amended since then, with major changes in 1968 and 1983. The UCMJ, which is part of the US Code (USC), is implemented through executive orders of the President. Those executive orders form a comprehensive volume of law known as the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).
Click to expand...

Link
 
apdst said:
And, we all know there's a huge difference between adding to the code and subtracting from the code. Don't we?
Click to expand...

No, there is not. There is zero difference between adding to the code and subtracting from the code. Are you seriously making the argument that the code can get longer and longer, but nothing can ever be removed from it? Really?

apdst said:
That being said, please, Mr. Civics, show us where the law allows Congress, or the president to change the UCMJ, at will.
Click to expand...

Scorpion got his ass handed to him last night barking up this tree, but you seem to be determined to follow in his footsteps...

The UCMJ is a statute at large, and like all statutory laws, it can be changed by Congress:

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.
Click to expand...

Now please just stop with the ignorance. I understand that not everyone is well-versed in civics, but if you aren't, don't pretend like you know what you're talking about and argue basic factual information with those who actually do. Do you really want to embarrass yourself as badly as Scorpion did?

apdst said:
Specifically, show us where the president can change the UCMJ via executive order.
Click to expand...

He can't. Congress can change it, and the president can sign or veto the change. Just like any other law.
 
Last edited:
Court case...

In Article 36, UCMJ, 10 USC § 836, Congress has authorized the President to prescribe the rules of evidence for courts-martial. Article 36 provides that such rules "shall, so far as [the President] considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter."
Click to expand...

Link
 
The recent reports of abuse of prisoners held by the military in Iraq have raised questions about how the armed forces discipline and punish those who commit crimes or violate the rules and regulations of the military. Congress, under the authorities vested in it, enacted a code of military laws, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The President, by Executive Order, has, in turn, established standards and procedures for prosecuting violators of the UCMJ and certain other laws. Military criminal courts are known as courts-martial. This report provides an overview of military courts-martial: who can be tried, potential punishments, and the appeals process.
Click to expand...

PDF Link

Should I really go on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom