Comments | gsa_lj: Why An Executive Order Won't Work

solopatriot in gsa_lj

Why An Executive Order Won't Work

Feb 07, 2009 13:16

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 ( Read more... )

presidential politics, dadt

Comments 13

solopatriot February 7 2009, 19:54:05 UTC

NOTE: The Military Readiness Enhancement Act would not only end DADT, but amend the UCMJ so that "Homosexual Acts" would not lead to a discharge under the UCMJ. DADT=Policy NOT law. UCMJ=Law NOT Policy. They are mutually exclusive

purplehamsa February 7 2009, 20:06:23 UTC

Thank you for your insightful analysis on this issue. I think we often pin our hopes too much on one powerful figure, in this case the president. We know that DADT was the consequence of Clinton attempting to push too quickly without the political will to back him up.

Here's hoping that this administration is able to see their way clear to follow the channels necessary to make real progress in accepting and acknowledging (and decriminalizing) all people who choose to serve regardless of seuxality and gender orientations.

solopatriot February 7 2009, 20:11:02 UTC

Here, here!

itsjustmatt05 February 7 2009, 20:41:09 UTC

This is definitely good info to know!

fabfemmeboy February 7 2009, 21:44:35 UTC

There's a second reason that DADT can't be removed via executive order: The policy was created by a congressionally-passed law, and an executive order cannot invalidate a law passed by Congress.

keito_f February 7 2009, 23:41:46 UTC

That's what signing statements are for.

tko_ak February 8 2009, 00:25:48 UTC

LOL. Touche. Although signing statements were pretty harmless until Dubya started abusing them.

solopatriot February 9 2009, 05:03:30 UTC

DADT is a policy excluded from the UCMJ, and COULD be overriden by Executive Order.

novus_semita February 8 2009, 00:56:22 UTC

Pretty sure that Article would get thrown out or edited along with DADT being repealed. Not to mention that it is very rarely enforced for anything other than statutory rape or bestiality.

I thought you were going to go the fraudulent enlistment angle...

solopatriot February 9 2009, 05:11:23 UTC

No. When you enlist, you sign a statement of understanding of the policy. You do not say that you aren't gay. That is what DADT took away. So, they can't even hit you for fraudulent enlistment when you violate the policy now.