• 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!

US court bars Trump from reversing transgender troops policy

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. Perhaps I was stereotyping which isn't too cool. Those stats did take me completely by surprise.

Now I looked under my profile and outside of entering one's bio I didn't see a thing about a star. Not under control panel either. According to the FAQ's, a star denotes independent, not military. As a member of the Reform Party, I really don't consider myself an independent. Other will do since Reform Party isn't listed. Somehow I get the feeling I missed something here. Besides, the avatar I use is the unofficial patch for those of us who served with Project 404 in Laos during the Vietnam War which in my mind denotes military. We were in civilian clothes.

Look at apdst in post #4. Near the bottom right under his name you'll see what appears to be a sheriff's star. That happens to denote US Army. I don't know how you get one of those and never looked into it because I've never served. If you're interested and the option doesn't exist in your control panel, then I'm sure a mod would be able to help.
 
Look at apdst in post #4. Near the bottom right under his name you'll see what appears to be a sheriff's star. That happens to denote US Army. I don't know how you get one of those and never looked into it because I've never served. If you're interested and the option doesn't exist in your control panel, then I'm sure a mod would be able to help.

Thanks. I never realized that there was stuff like that.
 
I was under the impression Trump would have signed his own EO to reverse Obama’s previous one. Regardless, it doesn’t matter how or why the policy is implemented, the actual implementation by government officials remains subject to the constitution. This decision could have been brought in through Congress as full legislation, the legal opinion would still probably be that a member of the military bringing a suit would likely win.

The court is challenging the executive office to undo EO's. there is 0 precedent for that.
It doesn't matter if the judge thinks they will win or not. his opinion of whether they will win is irrelvant.

We once again see obama's thwarting of congressional power coming back to bite him.
you are 100% correct this should have been done through congressional legislation.

this judge has no power to stop trump from undoing obama's EO.
 
The court is challenging the executive office to undo EO's. there is 0 precedent for that.
It doesn't matter if the judge thinks they will win or not. his opinion of whether they will win is irrelvant.
The court isn’t challenging the ability of the executive to undo EOs. Again, Trump can cancel any previous EO and no court can bring it back. Trump can sign an EO and no court could stop that EO existing. Congress can bring in legislation and no court could stop that legislation existing. What the courts can do is rule on any civil cases brought by citizens or organisations based on the constitutionality of what government officials actually do to implement the laws, rules and policies of government.

And of course the formal legal opinion on the potential constitutional consequences of any law or regulation from one of the judges who is responsible for actually ruling on such cases is relevant. To claim otherwise is beyond irrational! You might not like their opinion, you might even have counter-argument on a legal basis but that doesn’t make it irrelevant (if anything it makes it more relevant).

this judge has no power to stop trump from undoing obama's EO.
Correct. If the thing you believe happened is impossible, there are one of two possibilities. Either the impossible actually happened or you are mistaken. Which is most likely?
 
Not really because the initial cause of this was an EO. the president has the power to roll back EO's.
this judge has 0 authority in this matter. They are overstepping their judicial reach and messing with the executive powers.

this is why we have separation of powers.

if obama can enact an EO then another president can remove it. that is a constitutional power of the presidency.
this judge needs to learn the constitution and not grant itself powers that it doesn't have.

A judge can deem unconstitutional a President's EO. It's part of the checks and balances of our system. If Obama's was, a judge might have acted on it. Trump's was, so a judge DID act on it.
 
No it doesn't. only the implementation of an EO is subject to possible constitutional ruling. Repealing one very much is constitutional and Trump has the power to repeal
the EO whether the courts like it or not.

This is a different argument. Yes, a President can issue an EO over riding the EO of a past President. But the Congress can supersede a President's EO by creating law, and the judiciary can declare an EO unconstitutional based on legal argument. Checks and balances.
 
The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, per The Constitution. Also, per The Constitution, the courts do not have the power to make policy within the armed forces.

The President is trying to make policy on who can serve, which falls under issues of discrimination. Both Congress and the judiciary have the power to address discrimination even in the military.
 
The Constitution gives the executive authority to set policy in the armed forces. Serving in the armed forces isn't a right.

The Constitution does not give the executive the authority to discriminate in the armed forces.
 
The Constitution does not give the executive the authority to discriminate in the armed forces.

The Constitution gives the president the authority to issue executive orders. The Constitution gives the president the authority to over turn executive orders.

The military absolutely can discriminate. The armed forces discriminate every day.
 
A judge can deem unconstitutional a President's EO. It's part of the checks and balances of our system. If Obama's was, a judge might have acted on it. Trump's was, so a judge DID act on it.

He cannot mess with the presidential power to remove an EO. That is not in his preview.
that is why we have separation of powers.
 
This is a different argument. Yes, a President can issue an EO over riding the EO of a past President. But the Congress can supersede a President's EO by creating law, and the judiciary can declare an EO unconstitutional based on legal argument. Checks and balances.

The only EO being issued is a repeal of a previous EO. That is 100% constitutional.
Yep they can which is what trump is doing once again making congress act on something that was theirs to act on in the first place.

There is no legal argument here to be made. trump has 100% right to repeal an EO. that is within his power and no much a judge can say about it.
 
The Constitution does not give the executive the authority to discriminate in the armed forces.

Since that is not what is being done you would be wrong.
The only thing trump is doing is removing an existing EO. which he is constitutionally allowed to do.

something that he has constitutional power to do cannot be unconstitutional.
If he is what you say changing law then the first EO was unconstitutional as it changed law as well.

which means it should have never been issued, and we are back to square one where this was up to congress to decide.
however he isn't changing law. he is repealing a past EO which is constitutional.
 
It was a partial block. Trans can still enlist and serve, but the taxpayer will not be paying for sex reassignment surgery.

I think that's a fair ruling.

That doesn't stop nearly everyone left of center from thinking that it was an outright ban on transgendered servicemen.

This issue was nearly as overblown as the travel restrictions he tried to put in place, only for people who probably didn't even read the proposal to stop it from going through.

...have people forgotten to read in the last decade? Because it seems like they might have.
 
The Constitution gives the president the authority to issue executive orders. The Constitution gives the president the authority to over turn executive orders.

The military absolutely can discriminate. The armed forces discriminate every day.

And if someone brings suit regarding discrimination, the judicial branch can over rule the executive order. Happens all the time.
 
He cannot mess with the presidential power to remove an EO. That is not in his preview.
that is why we have separation of powers.

And a judge can deem it unconstitutional. That's why we have checks and balances.
 
The only EO being issued is a repeal of a previous EO. That is 100% constitutional.
Yep they can which is what trump is doing once again making congress act on something that was theirs to act on in the first place.

There is no legal argument here to be made. trump has 100% right to repeal an EO. that is within his power and no much a judge can say about it.

Sure, a President can repeal a previous EO. And the judiciary, if a suit is filed, can deem that EO, unconstitutional. And if that happens, Trump doesn't have anything he can say about it.
 
Since that is not what is being done you would be wrong.
The only thing trump is doing is removing an existing EO. which he is constitutionally allowed to do.

something that he has constitutional power to do cannot be unconstitutional.
If he is what you say changing law then the first EO was unconstitutional as it changed law as well.

which means it should have never been issued, and we are back to square one where this was up to congress to decide.
however he isn't changing law. he is repealing a past EO which is constitutional.

And, if that repeal is challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional, it gets thrown out.
 
And, if that repeal is challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional, it gets thrown out.

Not really because that is the court overstepping their bounds. They can't find a constitutional presidential power unconstitutional.
They could rule on the what is inside the EO. HOwever what is inside the EO simply undoes a previous EO.

Which again is constitutional power of the president.

No matter what you say this judge over stepped his bounds once again.
 
Not really because that is the court overstepping their bounds. They can't find a constitutional presidential power unconstitutional.
They could rule on the what is inside the EO. HOwever what is inside the EO simply undoes a previous EO.

Which again is constitutional power of the president.

No matter what you say this judge over stepped his bounds once again.

An EO is an EO even if it reverses another EO. If that EO is challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional, the EO is OUT. No matter what you say, the judge was on target.
 
Back
Top Bottom