• 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"

RightinNYC said:
No, he's absolutely not. The UCMJ is part of the US Code. The US Code is enacted by Congress. This is seriously some 11th grade Government class material here. I'm absolutely astounded that there are two people who are this misinformed.
Click to expand...
unless I was previously counted, you need to make that 3

on the upside tho, this thread has actually made debating law(s) cool :thumbs: :popcorn:
 
Scorpion89 said:
Article III Section 2
Click to expand...

Since you refuse to be more specific than that, I'll assume you're referring to the Case or Controversy clause of Art III. That says the exact opposite of what you think it does.

The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions.

...

In a letter to President George Washington, replying to the president's request for such an opinion, then-Chief Justice John Jay replied that it would violate the separation of powers for the Supreme Court to provide such an opinion
Click to expand...

Advisory opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

apdst said:
I have to show you where the SC court has the authority to rule a law unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

No, you have to show me where the SC has the authority to issue advisory opinions on proposed legislation. That's different than ruling on the constitutionality of an enacted law. If you're getting confused about the distinction, you should not be participating in this discussion.

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

I'm not sure why you keep saying this, especially when you don't even appear to understand the things that you're saying I'm too smart to believe.
 
RightinNYC said:
No, you have to show me where the SC has the authority to issue advisory opinions on proposed legislation. That's different than ruling on the constitutionality of an enacted law. If you're getting confused about the distinction, you should not be participating in this discussion.
Click to expand...

No, what is upoin you is to show how Congress and/or the president can change the criminal code, at will. I say that they can't do it. And, that one's on you, sport.



I'm not sure why you keep saying this, especially when you don't even appear to understand the things that you're saying I'm too smart to believe.
Click to expand...


I'm starting lose faith in those comments, too.
 
apdst said:
No, what is upoin you is to show how Congress and/or the president can change the criminal code, at will. I say that they can't do it. And, that one's on you, sport.






I'm starting lose faith in those comments, too.
Click to expand...

look out, he brought out the 'sport' card. I think he is getting serious LOL
 
apdst said:
No, what is upoin you is to show how Congress and/or the president can change the criminal code, at will. I say that they can't do it. And, that one's on you, sport.
Click to expand...

What do you know of the Jim Crow laws?
 
apdst said:
No, what is upoin you is to show how Congress and/or the president can change the criminal code, at will. I say that they can't do it. And, that one's on you, sport.
Click to expand...

This is seriously embarrassing. Congress has the undisputed authority to change the US code. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ****ING LEGISLATURE. Watch the school house rock video and learn what you apparently missed out on in middle school.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time explaining this to someone who very clearly would prefer to remain ignorant.
 
Just when I thought Scorp couldn't embarass himself anymore...APDST joins in......classic!

:2funny::2rofll::2funny:
 
This thread has been both thoroughly entertaining and a breath of fresh air. Righties and lefties joining forces to beat up on Team Stoopid. Sometimes it is just nice to find a common enemy.
 
Redress said:
This thread has been both thoroughly entertaining and a breath of fresh air. Righties and lefties joining forces to beat up on Team Stoopid. Sometimes it is just nice to find a common enemy.
Click to expand...

Nobody had to beat them. They beat themselves.....:rofl
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
This is seriously embarrassing. Congress has the undisputed authority to change the US code. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ****ING LEGISLATURE. Watch the school house rock video and learn what you apparently missed out on in middle school.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time explaining this to someone who very clearly would prefer to remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that you've so far failed to post anything supporting your position. If it's that obvious, it shouldn't take long to post documentation proving it.

newsflash: no branch has the undisputed authority to do anything. That's why they call it, "checks and balances". You just out of school, so that part oughta be fresh in your memory.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What do you know of the Jim Crow laws?
Click to expand...

And, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

But, to answer your silly ass question, I remember when I wasn't allowed in the, "white" store. I could only go to the nigger store. That's purdy much all I know about the Jim Crow laws.

Or, are you asking if I already knew that it was the SC that overturned Jim Crow? First case was argued in 1917.
 
I think there is a small chance that some people are talking about some new set of rules that only applies to Kenyan Presidents.

SOSDD.
 
What the **** is up with not just one, but TWO people arguing so PASSIONATELY for a position that is just factually incorrect by any definition? Look guys, everyone makes mistakes. You should have learned this basic civics stuff a long time ago, but at any rate, once it was explained to you, you really had two options: 1) Bite the bullet and admit that you were wrong, or 2) Slink off with your head down and don't say anything more on the subject at all.

"Argue vehemently against the earth being round" is not one of your options. You are just embarrassing yourself every single time you defend these moronic views.

Oh, and apdst gets DOUBLE the Stupid Points because he saw everyone own Scorpion, and actually joined him in his idiocy nearly an entire day later.
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

This one is not as relevant to the subject at hand, but I like it better: :lol:

[ame="http://www.livevideo.com/video/MikeNobody/EA99CA387EE64D0FA10FE7F6E23E4C30/the-simpsons-an-amendment-to.aspx"]The Simpsons - An Amendment To Be - Channel: MikeNobody on LiveVideo.com[/ame]
 
apdst said:
I can't believe that you've so far failed to post anything supporting your position. If it's that obvious, it shouldn't take long to post documentation proving it.

newsflash: no branch has the undisputed authority to do anything. That's why they call it, "checks and balances". You just out of school, so that part oughta be fresh in your memory.
Click to expand...

This has been explained to you over and over and over and over again in this thread. I'm not going to continue pounding my head against the wall.

(This is where you respond with some variation on "Oh, so you don't have any evidence, eh?" and then go to bed, secure in the knowledge that you're smarter than everyone else on the internets.)
 
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...

Congress can and has amended articles of the UCMJ. They did just that to update Article 120 to change the wording to add clarification and add stalking and sexual assault.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ -- Article 120, Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.
Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 120 - Banks.com
Chron.com | News, search and shopping from the Houston Chronicle

Scorpion89 said:
As I have stated DADT can't be changed because if it is removed then Section 925 Art. 125 can and will be used. As I also stated that if the President could have used an Excut. Order to remove Section 925 Art. 125 then Mr. Clinton would have done it when DADT was implemented. The bottom line is this only the USSC can change the UCMJ and they have very rarely ruled any part of UCMJ Un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Article 125 could still only be used if they got caught or turned themselves in. DADT does not automatically make Article 125 null and void. DADT just means that a person cannot be asked officially if they are homosexual. And if they tell someone officially that they are a homosexual, then it is up to the CO if he wishes to conduct an investigation. There are a few cases where, due to the nature of how the command found out about the person's/people's homosexuality, the command doesn't have a choice but to investigate, but even in these cases, the personnel's value to the command/service is considered in whether or not to put the person/people out.

Also, as mentioned before, Article 125 is not used fairly anyway, that is one reason why it should be deemed unconstitutional and removed altogether or at least changed to make an exception if the parties involved are doing it in private. Plenty of heterosexual men and women brag about their exploits breaking this particular article, and yet it is rarely ever used against heterosexuals.

I would love to hear a good argument for how exactly sodomy, when performed in private, actually affects unit cohesion or even good order and discipline, because considering that civilian sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional by the USSC, then this is the only justification the military can cling to for its own sodomy laws. So anyone who is defending UCMJ Article 125, exactly as written, want to tell me how a guy getting his willy wet by his wife in the privacy of their home affects how you might perform your duties or how he is affecting good order and discipline of the military unit he is in?
 
And the question is whether or not Obama has enough political capital to help sway enough of the Congress to not stay with the status-quo which is still heavily defended by many.

For Obama, this also could be a further distraction from other policy aims.
 
Fiddytree said:
And the question is whether or not Obama has enough political capital to help sway enough of the Congress to not stay with the status-quo which is still heavily defended by many.
Click to expand...

The American people are solidly behind allowing gays to serve openly. This is not an issue that should require a lot of political capital.

Fiddytree said:
For Obama, this also could be a further distraction from other policy aims.
Click to expand...

Why are actual policy changes viewed as "distractions"?
 
You are at one of those critical junctures to figure out if you can accomplish the goal of having openly gay citizens serve their country, but I think it is an exaggeration to say ''The American people'' are open to this. I am certainly in support of this, but we have to remember this is a controversial subject matter. Expressing support or starting the process to allow open gays in the military will likely require compromises in one area or another in other hot button political issues. Depending on what the parties important to this want, you could see this issue being sidelined.
 
Fiddytree said:
You are at one of those critical junctures to figure out if you can accomplish the goal of having openly gay citizens serve their country, but I think it is an exaggeration to say ''The American people'' are open to this. I am certainly in support of this, but we have to remember this is a controversial subject matter. Expressing support or starting the process to allow open gays in the military will likely require compromises in one area or another in other hot button political issues. Depending on what the parties important to this want, you could see this issue being sidelined.
Click to expand...

I can't see it sidelined. We are still in TWO wars and are likely to commit even more troops to what I consider to be a unwinable war in Afghanistan.
We can no longer afford to expend our assets in the form of discrimating against people for such ignorant reasons. We can no longer afford to train people into being valuable assets to our military and then dicharge them for these reason.

Please expain the negative aspects of having "openly gay citizens" serving their country and explain just how they might conduct themselves differently than they do currently when the President and congress repeal DADT?
 
They could certainly frame the debate in that fashion of it being useful for the War on Terror, but nevertheless there is still a large amount of people who do not see it that crucially to winning the War on Terror.

goldendog said:
Please expain the negative aspects of having "openly gay citizens" serving their country and explain just how they might conduct themselves differently than they do currently when the President and congress repeal DADT?
Click to expand...

Why do you want me to do that, exactly? You can get those responses anywhere. Secondly, I already said I support removal of DADT.
 
Fiddytree said:
You are at one of those critical junctures to figure out if you can accomplish the goal of having openly gay citizens serve their country, but I think it is an exaggeration to say ''The American people'' are open to this. I am certainly in support of this, but we have to remember this is a controversial subject matter. Expressing support or starting the process to allow open gays in the military will likely require compromises in one area or another in other hot button political issues. Depending on what the parties important to this want, you could see this issue being sidelined.
Click to expand...

This poll is a little over a year old, but I doubt the numbers have changed much: Acceptance of Gay People in Military Grows Dramatically - washingtonpost.com

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces.
Click to expand...
 
Kandahar said:
The American people are solidly behind allowing gays to serve openly. This is not an issue that should require a lot of political capital.
Click to expand...

They are? Got a link to those numbers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom