Comments on: Obama to End “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

By: Narc

Narc — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:19:55 +0000

Sorry Ames, small town computer programmer here, actually.

The problem with Steve’s method is that any Democrat that votes on repeal then gets to be called “against the troops” in the next election, which may make it politically untenable for some.

I just figure Obama should drop DADT and say he’s going to start enforcing the law against any soldier that has non-procreative sex (which is really what the law covers) whether straight or gay or married or not. I figure i won’t last long then.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:27:17 +0000

I assume he’s going to tell Congress he wants the UCMJ changed, the majority will cooperate, and he’ll sign legislation repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, for which he will take/be given credit for “lifting” it. You know, the way presidents properly “do” anything.

By: Ames

Ames — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:05:20 +0000

Touche. So how’s he going to do it?

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:54:53 +0000

Ames, no, it isn’t within CiC prerogative to amend the UCMJ, as Article I makes clear that the CiC is subordinate to Congress and its rules governing the military. Even accepting for the sake of argument that the Executive’s coequal with the Legislature, Commander in Chief isn’t part of the Executive, it’s a totally separate office that’s been tacked on. It’s comparable to the way that Queen Elizabeth II of England has a separate office, Head of the Commonwealth, that you have to be Queen of England to be qualified for. CiC means the President gets a 4-year ex officio commision as a 6-star, but as that 6-star he’s still just as subject to the dictates of Congress as any 3-star, or even any piddly E-1.

By: Ames

Ames — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:06:15 +0000

Now, Narc, I’m no big city lawyer, but aren’t you?

As to the UCMJ, that’s a good point, but isn’t it within CiC prerogative to amend? Perhaps the power of non-enforcement is the answer though…

By: Narc

Narc — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:30:23 +0000

Now, I’m no lawyer, but Obama doesn’t have the authority to rescind the UCMJ. So that means when he says he’s going to “lift DADT”, he’s either going to start prosecutions for sodomy or he’s going to just refuse to enforce the law. I’m not particularly thrilled with either option.

I guess there’s a third option, that they’re going to keep the sodomy law on the books but not kick soldiers out just for being gay, just for having actual gay sex.

By: Oneiroi

Oneiroi — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:54:20 +0000

Yeah, I was reading a conservative take on this as well, with some magazine poll saying there would be a 10% drop off in enrollment. Some of the comments make me angry but of course they would.

http://minx.cc/?post=280917

By: Radioactive afikomen

Radioactive afikomen — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:06:09 +0000

@Ames: I’m glad, too. : )

@Jello: RationalWiki was moved to a new server recently, but I was under the impression that all/most of the problems had been fixed. Perhaps your ISP just doesn’t like the site?

By: Jello

Jello — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:48:19 +0000

Is rationalwiki having some tech issues right now? I’ve been unable load it for several days now?

By: Ames

Ames — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:04:08 +0000

I KNOW! Glad I don’t have to say goodbye to you, RA, even if I’m saying goodbye to RationalWiki for now :)