Obama says will end 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

[Darius871]

He just can't discontinue it permanently.

And is that really the first thing you thought when reading that Wiki quote? Was the first thing to come to your mind "Commander-in-Chief power" or "limited conditions expressed in 10 U.S.C. § 12305"? Be honest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He can basically discontinue "don't ask, don't tell" for as long as America is at war.

And considering Afghanistan, that could be for a long, long time.

[Drake Tungsten]

And is that really the first thing you thought when reading that Wiki quote?

Of course. Why would I think that an executive order would be able to end "don't ask, don't tell" permanently? Executive orders aren't necessarily permanent by their very nature.

[Darius871]

Of course. Why would I think that an executive order would be able to end "don't ask, don't tell" permanently? Executive orders aren't necessarily permanent by their very nature.

Of course everyone knows it's dependent on who happens to be President. I'm asking if you really thought it dependent on purely external conditions Congress had already set, as opposed to some plenary authority derived from the Commander-in-Chief power.

[rah]

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge {insert any of his campaign promises here}, but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise.

It's really time for him to step up to the plate and do something instead of just talking about it.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm asking if you really thought it dependent on purely external conditions Congress had already set, as opposed to some plenary authority derived from the Commander-in-Chief power.

I'm not a lawyer. I have better things to do than worry about whether the impermanence of a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" that Obama has now had 9 months to sign off on is due to "purely external conditions Congress had already set, as opposed to some plenary authority derived from the Commander-in-Chief power." I prefer to focus big picture, which in this case is the fact that a President who campaigned on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" has made no moves toward doing so, even though it's clearly within his power.

[Darius871]

I prefer to focus big picture, which in this case is the fact that a President who campaigned on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" has made no moves toward doing so, even though it's clearly within his power.

Fair enough; I won't put words in your mouth then. But the fact is that Congress could shoot him down within days of his doing so, which is why the question of his authority's extent is important.

Even looking at the "big picture," from the perspective of the gay rights movement (or whatever it calls itself), what would really be the more effective way to "make good on his promise"? 1) Obama makes some flash-in-the-pan Order that A) at best will last as long as the wars do or B) at worst pisses off Congress enough to prompt their reinstatement of the policy before the wars end (using their superior constutional authority over the issue), or 2) Obama bides his time to piece together a legislative compromise that gets the MREA (or something similar) passed? I don't see the huge fault in being pragmatic.

[Drake Tungsten]

You do know that Congress is controlled by the Democrats, right? Why don't you drop the hypotheticals and join us in the real world?

[Darius871]

You do know that Congress is controlled by the Democrats, right? Why don't you drop the hypotheticals and join us in the real world?

What, and you think Congressional Democrats give a **** about gay rights, when gays are already a much safer voting demographic than the independents whose votes a pro-gay platform would alienate? I thought the thread already covered that. Christ, the Dems can't even get their own caucus in line on health care. Why don't you drop the meaningless party labels and join us in the real world?

[Drake Tungsten]

You really think a Democratic Congress is going to rebuke a Democratic President by slapping down his executive order to end "don't ask, don't tell"? Jesus Christ...

[Darius871]

You really think a Democratic Congress is going to rebuke a Democratic President by slapping down his executive order to end "don't ask, don't tell"? Jesus Christ...

No, a Republican-proposed bill passed by a substantial Republican minority plus some reluctant Democrats in states with socially conservative independents who don't want to give gays an inch, and who don't see the economy getting much better to boot. Add that to the usual anti-President trend of midterm elections, and it's an understandable concern for the White House to have. These things don't happen by accident.

[Kuciwalker]

There is no way a bill directly countermanding the President passes Congress.

[Drake Tungsten]

There is no way a bill directly countermanding the President passes Congress.

QFT

[Darius871]

There is no way a bill directly countermanding the President passes Congress.

What, the same Congress that has already burned the President on the public option he proposed and very publicly fought for to no avail? It should be obvious by now that they're not in lockstep and are covering their own asses.

Or suppose it doesn't pass (or barely passes but without beating a veto) - the inevitable Republican-proposed bill would still force the Dems to take a forceful and public pro-gay stance it otherwise wouldn't have to take (with all the inevitable slippery-slope arguments about gay marriage that come along with it) and unnecessarily complicate what will already be tough midterm elections, costing some seats in exchange for zero practical gain. One way or the other it's still a losing issue, so it's smarter to save it for a safer year.

[Drake Tungsten]

Or suppose it doesn't pass (or barely passes but without beating a veto) - the Republican-proposed bill would still force the Dems to take a forceful and public pro-gay stance it otherwise wouldn't have to

No, it won't. The Dems can just kill it in committee. Jesus Christ...