Why An Executive Order Won't Work
Based upon the complexities of an order from the Commander-in-Chief, certain congressional acts make it nigh unto impossible for President Obama to simply send out a memo ordering the cessation of DADT. (i.e. The President cannot order troops into combat without Congressional consent, save the Marine Corps and that's only for a very limited period of time.)
An Executive Order is risky business, too. He has such rights by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code. BUT always exists a catch-22:
DADT is a policy enacted by Congress and luckily but also destructively not part of the UCMJ. Let's say Obama ceased discharges under DADT, which he could. Fine, everyone come on out of the closet. Now, the military can't kick them out for being gay anymore, but they can still kick them out. Most discharges under DADT these days that are simply a result of "Homosexual Admission," a violation of the policy but not the UCMJ, and they result in a status of "HONORABLE" discharge whether given by the command or fought for and won with the help of an attorney and usually no UCMJ violations are tacked on, which they could be.
However, the military would flip the script and begin discharging these members for violation of the UCMJ which carries much stiffer penalties and no chance of an Honorable discharge.
Uniform Code of Military Justice
C. Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ). Sodomy is the engaging in unnatural carnal copulation either with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal. It is considered unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place his or her sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; orto have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body of an animal. Part IV, MCM 1984, para 51(c). Note:consent by the victim is not a defense regardless of the victim's age
Basically, any type of sex that is not male-female, vaginal intercourse is subject to being a violation of this article. And trust me, they don't need a video/audio recording or pics to discharge you for this. It's not right; it's not fair; it's outrageously outdated; and frankly, nobody's f-ing business. But it's the law. And no executive order can override the UCMJ.
Plus, you don't want to piss off Congress by issuing an Executive Order on something as controversial as this. Especially, when doing so would usurp an act of Congress. As bad as we hate it, we are simply going to have to wait for Congress to end DADT or the Supreme Court to say they must.
An Executive Order is risky business, too. He has such rights by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code. BUT always exists a catch-22:
DADT is a policy enacted by Congress and luckily but also destructively not part of the UCMJ. Let's say Obama ceased discharges under DADT, which he could. Fine, everyone come on out of the closet. Now, the military can't kick them out for being gay anymore, but they can still kick them out. Most discharges under DADT these days that are simply a result of "Homosexual Admission," a violation of the policy but not the UCMJ, and they result in a status of "HONORABLE" discharge whether given by the command or fought for and won with the help of an attorney and usually no UCMJ violations are tacked on, which they could be.
However, the military would flip the script and begin discharging these members for violation of the UCMJ which carries much stiffer penalties and no chance of an Honorable discharge.
Uniform Code of Military Justice
C. Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ). Sodomy is the engaging in unnatural carnal copulation either with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal. It is considered unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place his or her sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; orto have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body of an animal. Part IV, MCM 1984, para 51(c). Note:consent by the victim is not a defense regardless of the victim's age
Basically, any type of sex that is not male-female, vaginal intercourse is subject to being a violation of this article. And trust me, they don't need a video/audio recording or pics to discharge you for this. It's not right; it's not fair; it's outrageously outdated; and frankly, nobody's f-ing business. But it's the law. And no executive order can override the UCMJ.
Plus, you don't want to piss off Congress by issuing an Executive Order on something as controversial as this. Especially, when doing so would usurp an act of Congress. As bad as we hate it, we are simply going to have to wait for Congress to end DADT or the Supreme Court to say they must.