• 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"

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.

Congress has the complete legislative authority of the United States.

What Constitutional provision prohibits them from abolishing a law forbidding sodomy?

Failing that, what else stops them from doing so?

Be specific.
 
Congress has the complete legislative authority of the United States.

What Constitutional provision prohibits them from abolishing a law forbidding sodomy?

Failing that, what else stops them from doing so?

Be specific.

10th Adm. to name one
 
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.
 
Congress has the complete legislative authority of the United States.

What Constitutional provision prohibits them from abolishing a law forbidding sodomy?

Failing that, what else stops them from doing so?

Be specific.

Probably the same restrictions on their authority that would disallow them from making rape and murder legal.
 
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.

Very good point.
 
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.

Why don't they legalize rape and murder (to pull an apdst)? Political reasons. First, you have to have something that congress sees as worth passing. Although I'm sure there's plenty of good arguments for legalizing rape and murder, I think it would be a tough sell to convince enough of our politicians that they should legalize it to get the necessary votes.

And even if the politicians do favor legalizing rape and murder, they have their jobs to think about. If they vote for rape and murder they're probably not getting reelected.

So to answer your question, political reasons. Remember that the public was more opposed to gays in the military in 1996 than they are now. Congress had the authority to change it in 1996 just like they do now. But authority alone doesn't change laws.
 
Probably the same restrictions on their authority that would disallow them from making rape and murder legal.

Which are? I asked you to be specific.
 
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.

For the THIRD time, I explained in this post here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-7.html#post1058301028

exactly how DADT came into being.

You've ignored it every time.
 
Which are? I asked you to be specific.

Why? Because they can only legally repeal laws that no longer apply. Such as laws that tell you where you can, or cannot tie your horse. No need for those laws anymore.

DADT ain't goin' nowhere. If you all want to keep believing that it's because the Libbo Dems are chicken****, then that's perfectly fine by me.
 
Why? Because they can only legally repeal laws that no longer apply. Such as laws that tell you where you can, or cannot tie your horse. No need for those laws anymore.

DADT ain't goin' nowhere. If you all want to keep believing that it's because the Libbo Dems are chicken****, then that's perfectly fine by me.

You haven't answered the question. You say there are "restrictions" on the authority of Congress to repeal laws.

You haven't said what they are.

What are they? Specifically? Just answer.
 
You haven't answered the question. You say there are "restrictions" on the authority of Congress to repeal laws.

You haven't said what they are.

What are they? Specifically? Just answer.

It's called, "malfeasance in office", committing an unlawful act, in an official capacity. I thought you would figure it out, but I guess not. Repealing laws that were inacted for the sake of public safety, such as rape, murder, theft, could be considered malfeasance. Therefore, Congress doesn't have the authority to repeal such laws.

The thing I don't get, is if DADT is so wrong, why hasn't it been taken to the Supreme Court? That should be an easy win, too. Why hasn't it happened?
 
It's called, "malfeasance in office", committing an unlawful act, in an official capacity. I thought you would figure it out, but I guess not. Repealing laws that were inacted for the sake of public safety, such as rape, murder, theft, could be considered malfeasance. Therefore, Congress doesn't have the authority to repeal such laws.

Oh? Where's the provision -- of anything -- which defines "malfeasance in office" for Congress? Where does it proscribe repealing certain laws and not others?

Again, be specific.


The thing I don't get, is if DADT is so wrong, why hasn't it been taken to the Supreme Court? That should be an easy win, too. Why hasn't it happened?

I don't care if it's done one way or the other. I'm only discussing whether or not it can be done. It can. Any time Congress wants.
 
Oh? Where's the provision -- of anything -- which defines "malfeasance in office" for Congress? Where does it proscribe repealing certain laws and not others?

Again, be specific.




I don't care if it's done one way or the other. I'm only discussing whether or not it can be done. It can. Any time Congress wants.

Are you seriously suggesting that Congress is imune of charges of malfeasance?

If Congress abolished a law that was in place for the sake pf public safety, it would be obvious malfeasance. It ain't rocket science.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that Congress is imune of charges of malfeasance?

I'm suggesting you can't point to a single restriction on Congress which stops them from repealing a law which isn't "outdated." Period.

Because it doesn't exist.

If Congress abolished a law that was in place for the sake pf public safety, it would be obvious malfeasance. It ain't rocket science.

Shouldn't be too hard to find that codified restriction, now, should it?

If you actually ever do have a JAG friend read this thread -- and I'm guessing you won't -- be prepared to be laughed at. This is some of the rankest stupidity I've seen on this board, and that's saying something.
 
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.

For the THIRD time, I explained in this post here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-7.html#post1058301028

exactly how DADT came into being.

You've ignored it every time.

And, he's ignoring it again.
 
And, he's ignoring it again.

I told you how DADT came into being it was a ****ing Comp. between Mr. Clinton/DoD/Congress and the USSC waying in on th elegal side of it. Like I said if Mr. Clinton could have issued a Excu. Order why didn't he huh answer that one Harshaw you know it's ****ing funny sitting here and reading some of the BS you folks put up the bottom line is this Congress/The President can't change the UCMJ only the USSC can after a Section 867 Art 67a is ruled on but then again what the **** do I know huh.

Oh and since your so gunho on asking a JAG friend why don't you go ask your JAG Friend huh because I ask my Father a Retired JAG Judge who said that only the USSC can over tuen or change any part of the UCMJ but then again your going ot question him also. Thats fine what every your right never ****ing mind.
 
I told you how DADT came into being it was a ****ing Comp. between Mr. Clinton/DoD/Congress and the USSC waying in on th elegal side of it. Like I said if Mr. Clinton could have issued a Excu. Order why didn't he huh answer that one Harshaw

If you think anything in that post had a thing to do with Clinton OR executive orders, then you simply didn't read it.


you know it's ****ing funny sitting here and reading some of the BS you folks put up the bottom line is this Congress/The President can't change the UCMJ only the USSC can after a Section 867 Art 67a is ruled on but then again what the **** do I know huh.

Yeah, pretty much -- what the **** do you know? Not much about the law and how it comes into being, that's for sure.


Oh and since your so gunho on asking a JAG friend why don't you go ask your JAG Friend huh

Several of my best friends from law school are JAG or former JAG (one's a prof at the Air Force Academy, too). :roll: If I were to go "ask" them if I was right about this, they'd either laugh because they got the joke, or they'd say "WTF are you asking me this for? You know you're right."

And I do know that.


because I ask my Father a Retired JAG Judge who said that only the USSC can over tuen or change any part of the UCMJ

I very much doubt he said that. I'm certain that whatever he said, you misunderstood it.


but then again your going ot question him also.

If he was a JAG judge, I don't doubt him at all.

I doubt you understood what he actually said, that's all.
 
Gy, this post is beneath you. You usually express a well thought out position in your posts that I respect even when I disagree with you. This however is just silly.

Obama got what, about 1/3 of the military vote.

You consider it "silly" because you didn't catch my meaning. The support of the military has nothing to do with elections.

President Clinton entered the White House with promises to enlist gays and force the military to lead the social revolution again for America as it did time and again in the past. For example:

1) Black men were patrolling along side white men long before the civil rights movements.

2) Women were officiers in uniform long before they would be CEOs.

But a man, who found military service beneath him, coming in and immediately thinking that he could tear down the institution of the military to fit his politically correct visions just to fullfill impractical campaign promises found great friction. The few times he made appearances in front of the military it was accompanied with boos (the first time our militray had to contend with such unproffesional behavior in our ranks).

President Obama is in a better position with the military accepting that our civilian leaders are going to be without military experience. But he is still looking to send men to bleed on his horribly inexperienced order and it is far easier to deal with this responsibility without the military holding grudges.

In the end, the White House is far more successful with a cooperative Pentagon.
 
You consider it "silly" because you didn't catch my meaning. The support of the military has nothing to do with elections.

President Clinton entered the White House with promises to enlist gays and force the military to lead the social revolution again for America as it did time and again in the past. For example:

1) Black men were patrolling along side white men long before the civil rights movements.

2) Women were officiers in uniform long before they would be CEOs.

But a man, who found military service beneath him, coming in and immediately thinking that he could tear down the institution of the military to fit his politically correct visions just to fullfill impractical campaign promises found great friction. The few times he made appearances in front of the military it was accompanied with boos (the first time our militray had to contend with such unproffesional behavior in our ranks).

President Obama is in a better position with the military accepting that our civilian leaders are going to be without military experience. But he is still looking to send men to bleed on his horribly inexperienced order and it is far easier to deal with this responsibility without the military holding grudges.

In the end, the White House is far more successful with a cooperative Pentagon.

There is no evidence any one is going to bleed if gays are allowed to serve openly, and plenty or evidence that no one will. If the military had it's way, nothing would change outside of the technology and strategy and tactics. The military does have to keep up with the country, and the prohibition on gays has to go. It's not "political correctness", it's not social experimentation. It might have been the later for Clinton, but 16ish years later, it simply is not any longer. Just as the military had to give on women, and just as the military had to give on race, so too now it has to give on gays, and all the same doom and gloom prophecies and excuses just are not going to work.
 
!

You consider it "silly" because you didn't catch my meaning. The support of the military has nothing to do with elections.

President Clinton entered the White House with promises to enlist gays and force the military to lead the social revolution again for America as it did time and again in the past. For example:

1) Black men were patrolling along side white men long before the civil rights movements.

2) Women were officiers in uniform long before they would be CEOs.

But a man, who found military service beneath him, coming in and immediately thinking that he could tear down the institution of the military to fit his politically correct visions just to fullfill impractical campaign promises found great friction. The few times he made appearances in front of the military it was accompanied with boos (the first time our militray had to contend with such unproffesional behavior in our ranks).

President Obama is in a better position with the military accepting that our civilian leaders are going to be without military experience. But he is still looking to send men to bleed on his horribly inexperienced order and it is far easier to deal with this responsibility without the military holding grudges.

In the end, the White House is far more successful with a cooperative Pentagon.



Hear! Hear!
 
There is no evidence any one is going to bleed if gays are allowed to serve openly, and plenty or evidence that no one will. If the military had it's way, nothing would change outside of the technology and strategy and tactics. The military does have to keep up with the country, and the prohibition on gays has to go. It's not "political correctness", it's not social experimentation. It might have been the later for Clinton, but 16ish years later, it simply is not any longer. Just as the military had to give on women, and just as the military had to give on race, so too now it has to give on gays, and all the same doom and gloom prophecies and excuses just are not going to work.



This has nothing to do with rainbow flags or the movie "Milk." This is about politics. Mark my words. Obama is a learner. And what he learned from Clinton was to not aggravate your nation's fist in a time when you need it. Clinton and the Democrats went on to ride on the backs of the military from one location to another to satisfy their sense of humanitarian direction for America. Obama will not attempt anything serious until his term is near its end when he no longer needs the military to support him in Afghanistan (and whatever may come next).

On another note, this issue with gays is much much bigger a wall to tear down than the racial and gender issues of the past. As far as keeping up with the American society, it has been the military that has historically led our society on these type issues. But open gays is another matter entirely. The most hyper motivated, testosterone driven, alpha male gun club in the country is just supposed to "accept" homosexuals in uniform? This is not going to happen easy. It will be brutal. And it certainly can't be tackled in the midst of war where our men are busy bleeding on the order of a Commander-in-Chief who needs their support. The last thing our troops need now is to have to deal with his gay room mate or his gay patrol leader in battle.

If you consider that blacks were segregated at first and then eased in and women were kept behind desks away from ground pounder environments until eased in, gays will nt simply be dropped into platoons with a "how do you do."
 
This has nothing to do with rainbow flags or the movie "Milk." This is about politics. Mark my words. Obama is a learner. And what he learned from Clinton was to not aggravate your nation's fist in a time when you need it. Clinton and the Democrats went on to ride on the backs of the military from one location to another to satisfy their sense of humanitarian direction for America. Obama will not attempt anything serious until his term is near its end when he no longer needs the military to support him in Afghanistan (and whatever may come next).

On another note, this issue with gays is much much bigger a wall to tear down than the racial and gender issues of the past. As far as keeping up with the American society, it has been the military that has historically led our society on these type issues. But open gays is another matter entirely. The most hyper motivated, testosterone driven, alpha male gun club in the country is just supposed to "accept" homosexuals in uniform? This is not going to happen easy. It will be brutal. And it certainly can't be tackled in the midst of war where our men are busy bleeding on the order of a Commander-in-Chief who needs their support. The last thing our troops need now is to have to deal with his gay room mate or his gay patrol leader in battle.

If you consider that blacks were segregated at first and then eased in and women were kept behind desks away from ground pounder environments until eased in, gays will nt simply be dropped into platoons with a "how do you do."

That's a no ****ter!
 
This has nothing to do with rainbow flags or the movie "Milk." This is about politics. Mark my words. Obama is a learner. And what he learned from Clinton was to not aggravate your nation's fist in a time when you need it. Clinton and the Democrats went on to ride on the backs of the military from one location to another to satisfy their sense of humanitarian direction for America. Obama will not attempt anything serious until his term is near its end when he no longer needs the military to support him in Afghanistan (and whatever may come next).

On another note, this issue with gays is much much bigger a wall to tear down than the racial and gender issues of the past. As far as keeping up with the American society, it has been the military that has historically led our society on these type issues. But open gays is another matter entirely. The most hyper motivated, testosterone driven, alpha male gun club in the country is just supposed to "accept" homosexuals in uniform? This is not going to happen easy. It will be brutal. And it certainly can't be tackled in the midst of war where our men are busy bleeding on the order of a Commander-in-Chief who needs their support. The last thing our troops need now is to have to deal with his gay room mate or his gay patrol leader in battle.

If you consider that blacks were segregated at first and then eased in and women were kept behind desks away from ground pounder environments until eased in, gays will nt simply be dropped into platoons with a "how do you do."

Except that those gays are already there. An estimated 1 million gay vets going back to Korea. The only hardship is going to be as military people find out what the rest of the country already knows...gays are just people like us. The stupidity of some of those in uniform about gays is embarrassing, and this idea that the military can play politics to keep their fear of some one different is even more embarrassing.
 
Except that those gays are already there. An estimated 1 million gay vets going back to Korea. The only hardship is going to be as military people find out what the rest of the country already knows...gays are just people like us. The stupidity of some of those in uniform about gays is embarrassing, and this idea that the military can play politics to keep their fear of some one different is even more embarrassing.

Easy for you to say, you're not going to have to deal with it. Then again, even when you were in the service the odds of you getting any trigger time were damn slim and none. So, it's no suprise if you don't get it.
 
Except that those gays are already there.

That is an absolute fact. But the difference is that they are not holding hands with each other right before a patrol. And they are not getting ready for bed with a room mate who is now having to dress behind a closed door in his own room.

The only hardship is going to be as military people find out what the rest of the country already knows...gays are just people like us. The stupidity of some of those in uniform about gays is embarrassing, and this idea that the military can play politics to keep their fear of some one different is even more embarrassing.

It's not about fear. You, above most, should know this about Marines. It's about sexual roles. One of the very real reasons the infantry is an all male club is that it is easier to deal with a unit without the immersion of sexual competition amongst the ranks. We add in the gay factor and we may as well room men with women. Except in this case, the men won't be so welcome to the "opposite" sex.

I'm not saying that (open) gays in the military won't work. Whether or not it works, it's going to happen. But no militarily inexperienced Commander-in-Chief is going to force this upon a military that is bleeding for him in the middle of war. Clinton wasn't in a war. But he found out quickly that this subject did him no favors when it came to sending others off to murder in his name.
 
Back
Top Bottom