Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

[TacticalEvilDan]

Except, this isn't one of those times.

I think everyone should just accept that DADT is going to be around for a while. If this stunt would have worked, they would have done it a long time ago. This is nothing but a ploy to put DADT back in the headlines, since it was obviously dropped from view.

I'd be interested to see the look on your face when the Supreme Court rules against it. :lol:

 

[apdst]

The court of appeals has every jurisdiction over US laws, and that is what is at issue, a US law. You are entirely, 100 % factually incorrect.

You mean to tell me, that after all this time, they just now thought about ruling DADT unconstitutional? Surely, they're more creative than that. No, I think they know, as most of do, that they have no authotiry to abolish DADT, regardless of what they think it is.

 

[apdst]

There is not a single person within the jurisdiction of the United States who is not subject to the law, and the Constitution is pretty clear about which is the highest code of law in the land.

Whatcha wanna bet that DADT doesn't go away, because of this ruling? Hell, Obama can't even abolish DADT by executive order. If he could, he would.

 

[apdst]

This isn't a matter of objective fact. It's a matter of opinion.

Care to show me one single precedent where an appeals court forced the military to change a regulation because it was unconstitutional?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Whatcha wanna bet that DADT doesn't go away, because of this ruling?

As of this ruling, it's already out the door. It's been ruled unConstitutional. That only changes if and when a higher court rules otherwise.

Hell, Obama can't even abolish DADT by executive order. If he could, he would.

Well, no **** he can't, it was instituted by an act of Congress. You know, a law. No President can abolish the law via executive order.

A judge, however, can throw a law out by judicial fiat.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Care to show me one single precedent where an appeals court forced the military to change a regulation because it was unconstitutional?

Why do I have to show you a precedent? It's part of the United States Code, specifically Title 10. That means that a Federal court has jurisdiction.

Even if it wasn't part of the USC, the fact is that the Constitution clearly defines itself as the highest law in the land, so any law or regulation or order which contradicts it must be thrown out.

 

[apdst]

As of this ruling, it's already out the door. It's been ruled unConstitutional. That only changes if and when a higher court rules otherwise.



Well, no **** he can't, it was instituted by an act of Congress. You know, a law. No President can abolish the law via executive order.

A judge, however, can throw a law out by judicial fiat.

DADT is a part of US Code, or a part of DoD regulations? If the latter, then the executive branch has no authority to force it's abolition. This is nothing but a bluff.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

DADT is a part of US Code

United States Code: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces | LII / Legal Information Institute

There you go.

If the latter, then the executive branch has no authority to force it's abolition. This is nothing but a bluff.

No, this is nothing but your ignorance.

 

[apdst]

Why do I have to show you a precedent? It's part of the United States Code, specifically Title 10. That means that a Federal court has jurisdiction.

Even if it wasn't part of the USC, the fact is that the Constitution clearly defines itself as the highest law in the land, so any law or regulation or order which contradicts it must be thrown out.

Well, in that case, the military will just go back to the pre-DADT regulations--an outright ban on gays in the military. I'm not sure if this is going to have the effect that people are looking for.

 

[apdst]

United States Code: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces | LII / Legal Information Institute

There you go.



No, this is nothing but your ignorance.

Tell me that, this time next year, when DADT is still in place.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Well, in that case, the military will just go back to the pre-DADT regulations--an outright ban on gays in the military. I'm not sure if this is going to have the effect that people are looking for.

How do you figure that any court decision which throws out DADT is going to let stand a ban on gays in the military?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Tell me that, this time next year, when DADT is still in place.

You weren't aware that DADT is in the USC. That meant you were ignorant on the subject.

As for this time next year, that's an asinine challenge. Getting something up to the level of the USSC, much less getting a decision out of them, takes longer than that when there isn't a legitimate need for a speedy decision.

 

[apdst]

How do you figure that any court decision which throws out DADT is going to let stand a ban on gays in the military?

Because the ban, which is part of DoD regulations, is still in place. The 9th Circus only ruled that DADT is unconstitutional, not the military's ban on gays.

 

[apdst]

You weren't aware that DADT is in the USC. That meant you were ignorant on the subject.

As for this time next year, that's an asinine challenge. Getting something up to the level of the USSC, much less getting a decision out of them, takes longer than that when there isn't a legitimate need for a speedy decision.

Ok, this time 20 years from now, when DADT is still in place, we'll see what you think...LOL!!!

 

[Redress]

You mean to tell me, that after all this time, they just now thought about ruling DADT unconstitutional? Surely, they're more creative than that. No, I think they know, as most of do, that they have no authotiry to abolish DADT, regardless of what they think it is.

Because the case just now got before the judge? It was filed in 2004 IIRC.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Because the ban, which is part of DoD regulations, is still in place. The 9th Circus only ruled that DADT is unconstitutional, not the military's ban on gays.

First off, any decision on DADT could easily include language which would also address any outright ban on homosexuality.

Second off, DoD regulations have less weight than law. They are issued by the DoD rather than passed and signed into law. The President can tell the DoD to shove it on a DoD regulation any time he wants.

As such, even if a final court decision somehow failed to address an outright ban, the President could take advantage of DADT being struck down toss out the DoD regulations on the subject.

 

[Redress]

Whatcha wanna bet that DADT doesn't go away, because of this ruling? Hell, Obama can't even abolish DADT by executive order. If he could, he would.

Obama can suspend DADT but cannot abolish it as I understand it. Further, if he does that with executive order, then the next president can simply change it again, and playing musical regulations is not a good thing. For those reasons, Obama wants congress to do it the proper way. All of this is widely reported on and has been discussed with you in the past.

 

[apdst]

DADT isn't going anywhere. grow up and live with it.

 

[Redress]

Well, in that case, the military will just go back to the pre-DADT regulations--an outright ban on gays in the military. I'm not sure if this is going to have the effect that people are looking for.

This is incorrect. There no longer is an outright ban on gays serving, so if the ruling goes to SCOTUS and is rules unconstitutional, gays could serve openly.

 

[Redress]

DADT isn't going anywhere. grow up and live with it.

This is highly unlikely. Most likely when the DOD finishes it's review on DADT policy early next year, congress will rescind DADT. If they do not, the courts will most likely do it for them.

 

[OscarB63]

Because the ban, which is part of DoD regulations, is still in place. The 9th Circus only ruled that DADT is unconstitutional, not the military's ban on gays.

very good point. I hadn't thought of that. DADT was an ammendment to the military policy on gays serving. This ruling basically just reverses things back to the way they were before DADT and means that gays cannot serve period. This is, in fact, a defeat for gays and gay rights supporters.

 

[BCR]

Yet, most vets on this board, along with the JCS, say they are valid reasons. We're all wrong?!?

you feel that a Homosexual will negatively effect a unit? If so then that's not the gay persons fault, that's just his fellow soilders intolerence's fault.

you feel that it will harm our integrity? What, we going to get called names on the battlefield because we all homosexuals to fight?

I just don't see a reason to be against, The only reason you'd be against is because you don't like Gay people. Of course you and the fellow vets won't admit that but it's obvious.

 

[apdst]

And you have no evidence of this.

That's why I inserted, "IMO", which means, "in my opinion".

 

[apdst]

This is incorrect. There no longer is an outright ban on gays serving, so if the ruling goes to SCOTUS and is rules unconstitutional, gays could serve openly.

There is an outright ban on gays serving in the military. However, with DADT in place, no one can be asked if he/she is gay.

 

[Redress]

There is an outright ban on gays serving in the military. However, with DADT in place, no one can be asked if he/she is gay.

And this ban is where?