Given that Obama ran on ending “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and repealing the “Defense of Marriage Act,” those who believe in equal justice under the law — as per the Constitution — are justifiably none too happy about the fact that he hasn’t gotten around to doing either yet.
He did give a rousing speech to the Human Rights Campaign over the weekend, however, re-promising to do all of the above, even if he failed to give a timetable for either of them.
Both DADT and DOMA are federal law, so he can’t just change them unitarily over night….
On the DOMA, other than using his considerable bully pulpit to push Congress along, there doesn’t seem much he can do on his own. But then, there are all the other things — health care, climate change — sucking the oxygen out of that pulpit for the moment, even though equal justice under the law for an enormous section of our populace seems as if it arguably should stand side-by-side with the above on that pulpit.
But in the case of DADT, he can sign a stop-loss Executive Order directing that the policy no longer be enforced, particularly, as Dan Savage notes in the MSNBC video below, since the military continues to eject two patriotic, and much-needed, enlisted men and women each day that it’s still enforced.
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.
I appreciate that the above may happen anyway, the longer that Congress — and he — dally on this matter. But still, it seems that keeping the pressure on to end DADT, and do it properly, by law, rather than deflate the momentum vis-a-vis an Executive Order, makes some sense here. It’s an ugly, base political consideration, but we currently live in a very ugly, base political world. I’d be open to your thoughts, of course, where I may be missing something here.
This evening’s MSNBC discussion on the matter, between Laurence O’Donnell and Dan Savage, follows below…
Brad, Obama would not be emulating the Bush unitary presidency by issuing a stop loss order on DADT. The law as written and passed contains authority to do this. It may have been intended to meet emergency man power needs but does not have any restriction to that effect.
The Palm Project has investigated and reported on this.
A little more from a different perspective. A Stop Loss order would save the careers of hundreds of service members while the Congress works to repeal the law. In addition, the time, effort and millions of dollars already spent in training these service members will not have been wasted.
Or, he could simply veto each and every military spending bill that arrives at his desk that doesn’t have a repeal of DADT in it.
“The Congress of the United States is putting our men and women of the military in jeopardy by not sending me a military apprpriations bill that I can sign. They need to do this immediately, if they care at all about the security of this nation. I expect a bill on my desk to sign in the next 48 hours.”
I laugh at myself just IMAGINING a POTUS saying these words when the issue was gays and their rights.
I agree. Infact we should do more than keep DADT, we need a panel investigating homosexual activity in the armed forces. You can’t bring a purse to war, and you shouldn’t have queers either. I dont care if we lose valualble translators, or service men and women who have given their lives to this country. I dont want them looking at my junk in the shower! Its unamerican. This isnt fruity france.
News for ya, Tim. I suspect nobody gives a damn about your junk. Please don’t flatter yourself. In the meantime, I’m sorry to hear you don’t support the U.S. Constitution.
Perverted sexual acts are protected by the Constitution?
Under what article and section of the Constitution is that found?
The Constitution doesn’t speak to sexual acts at all, though many unConstitutional, bigoted, Big Government, Big Brother laws have tried to do so.
To the contrary, the Constitution speaks of equal protection under the law by all (14th Amendment). You may wish to read it sometime.
Or, feel free to read the case filed by Theodore Olsen, George W. Bush’s Solicitor General (Solicitor General is the person who argues to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a Presidential Administration, in case you’re similarly unfamiliar with that as well), challenging California’s Prop 8 banning marriage equality. His case points to both the equal protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment, as summarized for you here.
Good luck on Judgment Day, genius.