• 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"

Congress enacts prohibition Oct. 28, 1919
In February, 1933, Congress approved the 21st Amendment, which repealed the earlier amendment and made the Volstead Act unconstitutional.

:2wave:

So, you believe that Congress is actually going to pass an amendment that makes sodomy legal?

Oh, look, the Volstead act was deemed unconstitutional. I got a called a big dumbass for saying that a few weeks ago. Who'all said I was stupid for saying that? You weren't one of them, were you Glinda?

Newsflash: the law fobidding sodomy isn't unconstitutional.
 
Those laws that were repealed were nothing, really. One deals with the, "role of the United States Navy", which was repealed when the Navy's role was changed. Another deals with manufacturing misbranded foods in territories. Another excepted the amount payable for goods by the administrator of The Civil Areonautics Board when the amount didn't exceed $100. And, another deals with highways in some fashion.

Doesn't matter how you personally choose to categorize the laws that were abolished by Congress. The bottom line is, they were laws and they were abolished by Congress.


FAIL
 
This is a complete nonsense response to a post which obliterated every leg you have to stand on.

Congress can amend the US Code any time it wishes. Period.

They can only repeal the US code when a law no longer applies. So, they can't do it at will. That's the point I've been making since my first post on this thread: they can't do it at will.
 
Doesn't matter how you personally choose to categorize the laws that were abolished by Congress. The bottom line is, they were laws and they were abolished by Congress.


FAIL

Congress can legalize murder? How 'bout rape?
 
So, you believe that Congress is actually going to pass an amendment that makes sodomy legal?

Where did I say or imply such a thing? Can you READ?

You asked a question:

There's a precedent for Congress abolishing a law? Ok, let's see it.

I answered your question (as have others) with documentation to prove that there is indeed a precedent for Congress abolishing a law. That you don't like the answer is of no concern to me. I suggest you get over it.
 
Alright folks here it is plain and simple we right now have a Democrat President and Democrated Controlled Congress then why doesn't Mr. Obama just sign an Excut. order doing away with DADT and Section 825 Art. 125.

You all keep saying he can and that Congress is the only one's who can change the UCMJ never mind the fact it's the job of the USSC to rule what is and isn't a legal law.

So come on folks tell me why he doesn't just do today,tomorrow, next week huh ????????
 
They can only repeal the US code when a law no longer applies. So, they can't do it at will. That's the point I've been making since my first post on this thread: they can't do it at will.

:doh This is complete slobbering idiocy. You're only embarrassing yourself.
 
Where did I say or imply such a thing? Can you READ?

You asked a question:



I answered your question (as have others) with documentation to prove that there is indeed a precedent for Congress abolishing a law. That you don't like the answer is of no concern to me. I suggest you get over it.

Actually Congress didn't Abolished the Law the 21 Adm. like all Adm need to be voted on by each State before they become an Adm. but you knew that already :2wave:
 
Congress can legalize murder? How 'bout rape?

Those are state matters. The US Code is not.

But even so, to the extent that murder and rape are federal crimes -- and they are only under certain circumstances -- then yes, Congress can repeal those laws, too.
 
Congress can legalize murder? How 'bout rape?

WTF are you talking about?!? :screwy

You asked a question:

There's a precedent for Congress abolishing a law? Ok, let's see it.

I answered your question (as have others) with documentation to prove that there is indeed a precedent for Congress abolishing a law. That you don't like the answer is of no concern to me. I suggest you drop your loony attempt to move the goalposts and get over it.
 
Where did I say or imply such a thing? Can you READ?

You said that prohibition was abolished, therefore the sale and consumption of alcohol became legal. To abolish DADT, they're going to have to make sodomy legal.





I answered your question (as have others) with documentation to prove that there is indeed a precedent for Congress abolishing a law. That you don't like the answer is of no concern to me. I suggest you get over it.

Prohibition wasn't a law, it was a constitutional amendment. Not much difference, but still different.
 
Alright folks here it is plain and simple we right now have a Democrat President and Democrated Controlled Congress then why doesn't Mr. Obama just sign an Excut. order doing away with DADT and Section 825 Art. 125.

You all keep saying he can and that Congress is the only one's who can change the UCMJ never mind the fact it's the job of the USSC to rule what is and isn't a legal law.

So come on folks tell me why he doesn't just do today,tomorrow, next week huh ????????

This is a question some of us are asking. Why not get this done, since it can be and should be. Should have been done in January.
 
You said that prohibition was abolished, therefore the sale and consumption of alcohol became legal. To abolish DADT, they're going to have to make sodomy legal.

You sure are obsessed with sodomy. Why is that?


Prohibition wasn't a law, it was a constitutional amendment. Not much difference, but still different.

Only in your tiny, easily confused mind. :roll:
 
You sure are obsessed with sodomy. Why is that?

Because, it's the article in the UCMJ that prevents gays from serving openly in the military. You knew that, right?

No.

All they have to do is amend 10 U.S.C. 37 Sec. 654.

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

The self-embarrassment continues.

Did you notice the part where it says that it's not a constitutional right to serve in the armed forces? I love that part.

Anyway, what are they going to to skirt around this?

“(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.

Article 125—Sodomy

Pass a law that violates a law? Man, that's going to be tuff. Anyone care to explain how that's gonna happen??
 
Last edited:
No.

All they have to do is amend 10 U.S.C. 37 Sec. 654.

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

The self-embarrassment continues.

They would still have to remove Section 925 Art. 125 from the UCMJ and the only way that is going to happen is someone is charged with Art. 125 and then appeals it under Section 867 Art. 67a. Till then DADT can't be removed, yes I know it has never been used on straight military folks that's the point, if you remove DADT then you open up the chance and avery goodone that someone will be charged under Section 925 Art. 125. Untill the USSC rules it illegal there isn't much that can be done.
 
OK.

Maybe you both should have your JAG friends read this thread. G'head. Do it. Make sure you beam with pride about how right you are and what fools we all are. Play it up as much as you can before they read it. Really. I dare ya.

:roll:
 
This is a question some of us are asking. Why not get this done, since it can be and should be. Should have been done in January.


Here's an argument why it should be done by having the Congress change the law, rather than have Obama issue an executive order under his Stop Loss authority:


(snip...)


Obama has made the argument that he wants to change the law itself on DADT, which would require both houses of Congress to repeal the act, as a more permanent way to stop this outrageous, absurd, un-American, and self-defeating policy.

So allow me to argue in his favor for the moment (as rare as that's become around here), by offering two points, after which I'm interested in your thoughts on this:


1) The Bush Administration's use of selective enforcement of laws, and signing statements to quietly declare it in many cases, under the "Theory of the Unitary Executive," was an abomination to the U.S. Constitution. If Obama were to sign a stop-loss order, temporarily repealing DADT by ordering that it not be enforced, wouldn't he be doing the same thing we all so despised when Bush did it?

2) Obama's argued that changing the law itself is a much more permanent way to assure that it stays changed, and can't easily be undone by a future President. To that end, doesn't not changing the policy by Presidential fiat keep the heat under Congress to pass the law that he'd need to sign to end this absurdity once and for all? It seems to me that if an Executive Order is signed it'll put the issue even farther onto a Congressional back-burner, and perhaps even to the point where the law won't be repealed at all before it becomes too late to do so, for example, in the event of a less equality-friendly Congress or President in the foreseeable future.

more ...

The BRAD BLOG : Don't Ask Don't Hurry


Here's another article making the same argument: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/the-pen-stroke-fallacy_b_317522.html
 
Last edited:
Here's an argument why it should be done by having the Congress change the law, rather than have Obama issue an executive order under his Stop Loss authority:

I understand that argument, and to an extent agree with it. That does not excuse it not being done by now. Congress could easily have had a bill on Obama's desk repealing DADT and authorizing gays to serve openly in the military in January.
 
I can't believe it, but I'm actually sticking up for PBO...:rofl
 
If Obama were to sign a stop-loss order, temporarily repealing DADT by ordering that it not be enforced

I'm quite sure that that would be very illegal. It goes back to the thread about whether, or not, by virtue of being the president, that the president can give any ole order he wants. The reality is, he can't.
 
So, you believe that Congress is actually going to pass an amendment that makes sodomy legal?

I almost didn't read this thread due to the sheer size of it. Almost missed out on an incredibly entertaining demonstration of stupidity, even if it is pretty basic stuff.

There's a difference in being able to and going to. Congress absolutely is able to get rid of it. The whole purpose of congress is to change law. Arguing that they don't have the authority to change statutory law is like arguing the Earth is flat.

But you could argue that they're not going to. Many angles to take on that. One would be that they have more important things to devote their time to like passing healthcare so that they're not going to spend time on it. Or, you could say it's political suicide. That if the issue was brought up in congress the mormon church and conservatives would fund a massive campaign against it like they did proposition 8, swaying public opinion against any change. Politicians don't like voting for unpopular law because it hurts their chance of getting reelected. While the political aspect is certainly open to argument, it has the benefit of not being ignorant of highschool government level understanding.
 
I almost didn't read this thread due to the sheer size of it. Almost missed out on an incredibly entertaining demonstration of stupidity, even if it is pretty basic stuff.

There's a difference in being able to and going to. Congress absolutely is able to get rid of it. The whole purpose of congress is to change law. Arguing that they don't have the authority to change statutory law is like arguing the Earth is flat.

But you could argue that they're not going to. Many angles to take on that. One would be that they have more important things to devote their time to like passing healthcare so that they're not going to spend time on it. Or, you could say it's political suicide. That if the issue was brought up in congress the mormon church and conservatives would fund a massive campaign against it like they did proposition 8, swaying public opinion against any change. Politicians don't like voting for unpopular law because it hurts their chance of getting reelected. While the political aspect is certainly open to argument, it has the benefit of not being ignorant of highschool government level understanding.


That's nothing. Did you see where one poster posted an article that suggested that the president has the authority to oder a law not be enforced?

There's a difference in being able to and going to. Congress absolutely is able to get rid of it.

So, you're saying that Congress can abolish a law forbiding sodomy? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that they can actually do that.
 
Back
Top Bottom