So, you're saying that Congress can abolish a law forbiding sodomy? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that they can actually do that.
Congress has the complete legislative authority of the United States.
What Constitutional provision prohibits them from abolishing a law forbidding sodomy?
Failing that, what else stops them from doing so?
Be specific.
Congress has the complete legislative authority of the United States.
What Constitutional provision prohibits them from abolishing a law forbidding sodomy?
Failing that, what else stops them from doing so?
Be specific.
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.
Probably the same restrictions on their authority that would disallow them from making rape and murder legal.
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.
Which are? I asked you to be specific.
Why? Because they can only legally repeal laws that no longer apply. Such as laws that tell you where you can, or cannot tie your horse. No need for those laws anymore.
DADT ain't goin' nowhere. If you all want to keep believing that it's because the Libbo Dems are chicken****, then that's perfectly fine by me.
You haven't answered the question. You say there are "restrictions" on the authority of Congress to repeal laws.
You haven't said what they are.
What are they? Specifically? Just answer.
It's called, "malfeasance in office", committing an unlawful act, in an official capacity. I thought you would figure it out, but I guess not. Repealing laws that were inacted for the sake of public safety, such as rape, murder, theft, could be considered malfeasance. Therefore, Congress doesn't have the authority to repeal such laws.
The thing I don't get, is if DADT is so wrong, why hasn't it been taken to the Supreme Court? That should be an easy win, too. Why hasn't it happened?
Oh? Where's the provision -- of anything -- which defines "malfeasance in office" for Congress? Where does it proscribe repealing certain laws and not others?
Again, be specific.
I don't care if it's done one way or the other. I'm only discussing whether or not it can be done. It can. Any time Congress wants.
Are you seriously suggesting that Congress is imune of charges of malfeasance?
If Congress abolished a law that was in place for the sake pf public safety, it would be obvious malfeasance. It ain't rocket science.
Jeeze ****ing xhrist folks what part of this don't you understand if the President could have just signed and excutive Order why didn't Mr. Clinton just do this back in 1996 huh , now before making another post all of you keep saying that the President and Congress can change the UCMJ then why didn't they do it back in 1996.
For the THIRD time, I explained in this post here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-7.html#post1058301028
exactly how DADT came into being.
You've ignored it every time.
And, he's ignoring it again.
I told you how DADT came into being it was a ****ing Comp. between Mr. Clinton/DoD/Congress and the USSC waying in on th elegal side of it. Like I said if Mr. Clinton could have issued a Excu. Order why didn't he huh answer that one Harshaw
you know it's ****ing funny sitting here and reading some of the BS you folks put up the bottom line is this Congress/The President can't change the UCMJ only the USSC can after a Section 867 Art 67a is ruled on but then again what the **** do I know huh.
Oh and since your so gunho on asking a JAG friend why don't you go ask your JAG Friend huh
because I ask my Father a Retired JAG Judge who said that only the USSC can over tuen or change any part of the UCMJ
but then again your going ot question him also.
Gy, this post is beneath you. You usually express a well thought out position in your posts that I respect even when I disagree with you. This however is just silly.
Obama got what, about 1/3 of the military vote.
You consider it "silly" because you didn't catch my meaning. The support of the military has nothing to do with elections.
President Clinton entered the White House with promises to enlist gays and force the military to lead the social revolution again for America as it did time and again in the past. For example:
1) Black men were patrolling along side white men long before the civil rights movements.
2) Women were officiers in uniform long before they would be CEOs.
But a man, who found military service beneath him, coming in and immediately thinking that he could tear down the institution of the military to fit his politically correct visions just to fullfill impractical campaign promises found great friction. The few times he made appearances in front of the military it was accompanied with boos (the first time our militray had to contend with such unproffesional behavior in our ranks).
President Obama is in a better position with the military accepting that our civilian leaders are going to be without military experience. But he is still looking to send men to bleed on his horribly inexperienced order and it is far easier to deal with this responsibility without the military holding grudges.
In the end, the White House is far more successful with a cooperative Pentagon.
You consider it "silly" because you didn't catch my meaning. The support of the military has nothing to do with elections.
President Clinton entered the White House with promises to enlist gays and force the military to lead the social revolution again for America as it did time and again in the past. For example:
1) Black men were patrolling along side white men long before the civil rights movements.
2) Women were officiers in uniform long before they would be CEOs.
But a man, who found military service beneath him, coming in and immediately thinking that he could tear down the institution of the military to fit his politically correct visions just to fullfill impractical campaign promises found great friction. The few times he made appearances in front of the military it was accompanied with boos (the first time our militray had to contend with such unproffesional behavior in our ranks).
President Obama is in a better position with the military accepting that our civilian leaders are going to be without military experience. But he is still looking to send men to bleed on his horribly inexperienced order and it is far easier to deal with this responsibility without the military holding grudges.
In the end, the White House is far more successful with a cooperative Pentagon.
There is no evidence any one is going to bleed if gays are allowed to serve openly, and plenty or evidence that no one will. If the military had it's way, nothing would change outside of the technology and strategy and tactics. The military does have to keep up with the country, and the prohibition on gays has to go. It's not "political correctness", it's not social experimentation. It might have been the later for Clinton, but 16ish years later, it simply is not any longer. Just as the military had to give on women, and just as the military had to give on race, so too now it has to give on gays, and all the same doom and gloom prophecies and excuses just are not going to work.
This has nothing to do with rainbow flags or the movie "Milk." This is about politics. Mark my words. Obama is a learner. And what he learned from Clinton was to not aggravate your nation's fist in a time when you need it. Clinton and the Democrats went on to ride on the backs of the military from one location to another to satisfy their sense of humanitarian direction for America. Obama will not attempt anything serious until his term is near its end when he no longer needs the military to support him in Afghanistan (and whatever may come next).
On another note, this issue with gays is much much bigger a wall to tear down than the racial and gender issues of the past. As far as keeping up with the American society, it has been the military that has historically led our society on these type issues. But open gays is another matter entirely. The most hyper motivated, testosterone driven, alpha male gun club in the country is just supposed to "accept" homosexuals in uniform? This is not going to happen easy. It will be brutal. And it certainly can't be tackled in the midst of war where our men are busy bleeding on the order of a Commander-in-Chief who needs their support. The last thing our troops need now is to have to deal with his gay room mate or his gay patrol leader in battle.
If you consider that blacks were segregated at first and then eased in and women were kept behind desks away from ground pounder environments until eased in, gays will nt simply be dropped into platoons with a "how do you do."
This has nothing to do with rainbow flags or the movie "Milk." This is about politics. Mark my words. Obama is a learner. And what he learned from Clinton was to not aggravate your nation's fist in a time when you need it. Clinton and the Democrats went on to ride on the backs of the military from one location to another to satisfy their sense of humanitarian direction for America. Obama will not attempt anything serious until his term is near its end when he no longer needs the military to support him in Afghanistan (and whatever may come next).
On another note, this issue with gays is much much bigger a wall to tear down than the racial and gender issues of the past. As far as keeping up with the American society, it has been the military that has historically led our society on these type issues. But open gays is another matter entirely. The most hyper motivated, testosterone driven, alpha male gun club in the country is just supposed to "accept" homosexuals in uniform? This is not going to happen easy. It will be brutal. And it certainly can't be tackled in the midst of war where our men are busy bleeding on the order of a Commander-in-Chief who needs their support. The last thing our troops need now is to have to deal with his gay room mate or his gay patrol leader in battle.
If you consider that blacks were segregated at first and then eased in and women were kept behind desks away from ground pounder environments until eased in, gays will nt simply be dropped into platoons with a "how do you do."
Except that those gays are already there. An estimated 1 million gay vets going back to Korea. The only hardship is going to be as military people find out what the rest of the country already knows...gays are just people like us. The stupidity of some of those in uniform about gays is embarrassing, and this idea that the military can play politics to keep their fear of some one different is even more embarrassing.
Except that those gays are already there.
The only hardship is going to be as military people find out what the rest of the country already knows...gays are just people like us. The stupidity of some of those in uniform about gays is embarrassing, and this idea that the military can play politics to keep their fear of some one different is even more embarrassing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?