Don't Ask, Don't Tell fails Senate

Status
Not open for further replies.
^
It is how our judicial system works.
The number of military staffs who are jumping through hoops should not be shocked by any of this. The writing has been on the wall for a while.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
^
It is how our judicial system works.
The number of military staffs who are jumping through hoops should not be shocked by any of this. The writing has been on the wall for a while.
Click to expand...

True....since the Presidents hope on the coat tails of an appropriations bill wasn't signed....yep, it's been on the wall, and on the floor and all over the toilet....


Interesting, 14 years and nothing like this happens, then a 'props' bill isn't signed and it's a made scramble.

Military staffs, as well as apparently the entire executive branch were not prepared for this. Simple fact.
 
I forgot to say "during war time"....in case anyone forget. As the federal govt. plays politics, people are fighting. Good timing. :rolleyes:
 
It's just a shame that this is being fought in court. This is a congressional and presidential issue, not the courts. The constitution allows the congress and president to create and set standards for the military to ensure discipline. The DADT, while a stupid policy, is in fact constitutional and the federal judge has overstepped her boundaries. And unfortunately, many Americans feel it's alright for the court to legislate. Next will come a male challenging the military in court to allow him to grow his hair long, because it's his freedom of expression. Or a military member will wake up one day and decide: "I quit". He won't go to work, and he'll simply leave. And he'll have some judge say that it's his right of freedom to simply quit. Just like he would at a civilian job. People just don't want to realize that the congress and the president has the power via the constitution and US code to establish standards and rules in the military that would be considered unconstitutional in the civilian world. But I guess now, some Captain and Airman can start dating and having relations openly. After all, fraternization would never be questioned in the civilian world. It just wouldn't permit the same chain of command.

This goes beyond DADT now. This goes into a rouge judge being allowed to legislate, the congress and president not standing up, and for political reasons, not proclaiming and living up to their responsibilities; and the american people believing that this is a "Good thing". Ever since the civil war, states and individuals have been losing more and more of their rights. And the saga continues. This is a congressional and presidential matter; not the courts. And the president needs to stand up, with the congress, and tell her that she is out of bounds and not authorized. What can she do? Arrest the president or Reed/Pelosi?
 
I will continue to question, because this is NOT a law that applies to "ALL CITIZENS". This is policy that applies to the military. And the congress and the president do indeed have the right to establish such policy. And yes, I am familiar with the role of the federal court. But obviously, the congress and president must sort of agree with me or they wouldn't be fighting the issue. They'd just roll over like many others would have them do, and say: "Well, the judge said it, that's the way it is".

But please, tell me, why then have not most of the other military policies, rules, laws, etc... that don't apply to civilians, not been challenged and ruled unconstitutional?
 
Wow, just wow. Are you sure you have not turned into Christine O'Donnell??

When US Citizens feel the Government has wronged them - they are free to seek redress in the Courts. This is how it works.

A law does not have to apply to ALL CITIZENS in order to be unconstitutional.
I suggest you read her ruling. She took into consideration the Gov't claim that this policy was 'necessary' for good order and discipline etc. She found that just is not so based on plenty of testimony from military members.
Even the military can't make up arbitrary rules. What if the military decreed that you could only join if you had blue eyes???
 
The number of military staffs who are jumping through hoops should not be shocked by any of this. The writing has been on the wall for a while.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the military doesn't turn on a dime. They still do not have the survey completed, which means they did not have time to create an implementation regarding this issue since they have no results from the survey. How large of a dept do you think exists just for DADT?

To say the writing has been on the wall infers that they should have had a plan already. They don't have a plan because the writing has been DADT.

They are jumping through hoops because now they had to work with the Obama administration from a legal standpoint and the DoD from a logistics standpoint. They then had to brief and float it down to the lower level ranks, and that takes time.

We are talking about the equivalent of a corporation that employs MILLIONS of people, if you add every branch, and every reservist. Not an easy thing to do when you are given days to reverse the course. It is jumping through hoops. 4 stars at the Pentagon are not all about DADT, their hands are in many issues, like a 2 front war/conflict, upgrading military hardware, fighting for budgets, etc. etc. etc. DADT is not their only priority. The 1 star that may be in charge of DADT for the Army, has to go up the ranks to brief the 2, that briefs the 3, that briefs the 4, that briefs Gates who briefs Obama, and then it has to come back down the same ladder. From there it goes to commands and down the ladder to the peons serving and implementing the direction.

A directive like this means jumping through hoops.

My true issue is from a political clout standpoint. I want to know how this administration is going to spin this. Who is going to be the scape goat in the end? SCOTUS, Congress, DoD or AG? I highly doubt the administration will take the hit. Obama has the ability to step up and tell the AG and DoD we will now accept homosexuals, instead, as people predicted the military is being used as a political pawn with this administration. If Obama believes adamantly in the repeal, then why go through this course...sell it to the American people as a Constitutional lawyer, that this judge was correct and DADT is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Just_A_Mom said:
Wow, just wow. Are you sure you have not turned into Christine O'Donnell??

When US Citizens feel the Government has wronged them - they are free to seek redress in the Courts. This is how it works.

A law does not have to apply to ALL CITIZENS in order to be unconstitutional.
I suggest you read her ruling. She took into consideration the Gov't claim that this policy was 'necessary' for good order and discipline etc. She found that just is not so based on plenty of testimony from military members.
Even the military can't make up arbitrary rules. What if the military decreed that you could only join if you had blue eyes???
Click to expand...

Obviously, most people, including here, are trying to debate whether DADT is "Good or Bad". I am not talking about that at all. There are 2 things here.

1) Is DADT a Good or Bad policy? Most everyone agrees it's bad. The military never wanted it. Most republicans never wanted it. When President Clinton, the Democratic Controlled house, and Democratic Controlled senate pushed it through; "Against a lot of opposition"; most people thought it was a terrible policy. That hasn't changed since day one. (Although most people don't realize it's origination)

2) Is DADT constitutional? Yes, it is. Why? Because the congress and president have the authority to make such rules "FOR THE MILITARY". There is no constitutional right for a person to serve in the military. It is totally voluntary. And the congress/president has the "RIGHT" to set standards, rules, policy, etc... as they see fit to maintain the order and discipline of the military. The 1st Circuit Court of appeals already stated years ago that the DADT policy does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

So, if you want to talk about DADT, then see POINT 1). If you want to talk about the Constitution, then see POINT 2). But don't mix the 2 up. They are NOT interchangeable. If you believe they are, then bring out the entire UCMJ and all other military rules/laws/policies. Because there are a never ending number of rules/laws/policies in the military that if applied to a civilian would be considered unconstitutional. BUT, they ARE allowed in the military.
 
Last edited:
This is the song that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friends.
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue singing it forever just because...
 
Christcorp said:
2) Is DADT constitutional? Yes, it is. Why? Because the congress and president have the authority to make such rules "FOR THE MILITARY". There is no constitutional right for a person to serve in the military. It is totally voluntary. And the congress/president has the "RIGHT" to set standards, rules, policy, etc... as they see fit to maintain the order and discipline of the military.
Click to expand...

Sigh. The President and Congress CANNOT make any rules they wish for the military.

Something needs to have oversight over their rules, right? (Pssst - that "something" is the US Federal Courts).

Or are you giving them absolute autonomy and full power to institute any rules they wish, without regard to the US Constitution? :screwy:

What would stop the President and/or Congress from making rules for the military such as these?

  • No blacks allowed in Food Service branch.
  • No whites allowed in Artillery.
  • No one with red hair allowed in Aviation.
  • No one from Vermont allowed in Air Force.
Using your position, nothing could stop them. Since they only apply to a voluntary military, they are judicially A-OK with you - no court can review them for constitutionality. :eek:
 
Actually, it was the military and NOT the courts that stopped segregation in the military. Yes, the congress/president can make any law/rules they want for the military. Problem is; you make it sound like it's 1 person capable of making such a law/rule. It requires the entire congress. And THAT is the "Check and Balance" that you are looking for.

In it's simplest form; if you believe that it's the Judicial branch of the government that has final say so over the military; then you must also believe then that the military has no need for a judicial system of it's own. That there's no need for the UCMJ or for any military policies/rules/laws/etc... And as such, you are admitting then than the Judicial system CAN rule that military members are ALLOWED to quit, to form a union, to picket the military, etc.... That their right to expression allows the jewish military individual to grow his hair and a beard, wear ear rings, nose rings, etc... That any individual is free to date/marry/have sex with any other individual, even if it's a Major and an Airman, etc... Basically, you're saying that no military justice is required. If you are saying that the congress/president/military's ability to make/enforce ANY law, such as gays in the military is "Unconstitutional" and therefor not allowed; then any other law that the congress/president/military comes up with, (Such as some of my examples listed above), are ALSO Unconstitutional. It can't be both ways. It is just as unconstitutional to not allow a military member to simply QUIT and not show up for work any more, as it is to say that DADT is unconstitutional. And that would be just as unconstitutional as not allowing an military member to express themselves in their hair, dress, appearance.

I know what you want to believe our Judicial branch of government has authority over, but the military; through the congress and president; is authorized their own justice system and their own standards to be set and lived by. And THAT IS Constitutional.
 
Luigi59 said:
Sigh. The President and Congress CANNOT make any rules they wish for the military.

Something needs to have oversight over their rules, right? (Pssst - that "something" is the US Federal Courts).

Or are you giving them absolute autonomy and full power to institute any rules they wish, without regard to the US Constitution? :screwy:

What would stop the President and/or Congress from making rules for the military such as these?

  • No blacks allowed in Food Service branch.
  • No whites allowed in Artillery.
  • No one with red hair allowed in Aviation.
  • No one from Vermont allowed in Air Force.
Using your position, nothing could stop them. Since they only apply to a voluntary military, they are judicially A-OK with you - no court can review them for constitutionality. :eek:
Click to expand...

Or who would stop the Supreme Court from committing another Dred Scott. (Roger B. Taney....who we named a ship after).
 
And we overlook the federal Appeals Court which apparently DIDN'T believe that is was SO UNCONSTITUTIONAL that DADT needed to be ended immediately.
 
LineInTheSand said:
And we overlook the federal Appeals Court which apparently DIDN'T believe that is was SO UNCONSTITUTIONAL that DADT needed to be ended immediately.
Click to expand...

Au Contraire. This is not the rationale for granting a stay. The Federal Appeals court has not ruled on the Constitutionality of this case. This is not uncommon at all to grant a stay until the case is heard.
 
LineInTheSand said:
And we overlook the federal Appeals Court which apparently DIDN'T believe that is was SO UNCONSTITUTIONAL that DADT needed to be ended immediately.
Click to expand...


A ruling of the First Circuit (I think this was the decision mentioned in an earlier post) is not binding on the District Court in California, as the latter Court is under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. Federal Appeals Court rulings are only binding precedent on lower courts in their respective circuit. A Supreme Court opinion is binding on all lower Federal Courts (District and Court of Appeals) in the country.

A brief aside on the "so unconstitutional" comment: I'm not sure you meant this, but I wanted to clarify that there are not degrees of constitutionality. A law cannot be a little bit unconstitutional anymore than a woman can be a little bit pregnant.
 
Last edited:
sprog said:
The ruling of the First Circuit is not binding on the District Court in California, as the latter Court is under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. Federal Appeals Court rulings are only binding precedent on lower courts in their respective circuit. A Supreme Court opinion is binding on all lower Federal Courts (District and Court of Appeals) in the country.

A brief aside on the "so unconstitutional" comment. I'm not sure you meant this, but I wanted to clarify that there are not degrees of constitutionality. A law cannot be a little bit unconstitutional anymore than a woman can be a little bit pregnant.
Click to expand...

So true. Which is why if the judicial branch is allowed to over ride the executive and legislative branch in their right to establish a judicial system specifically for the military; then a very large portion of the UCMJ and other policies will also become unconstitutional. Because it can't be "A little Unconstitutional". Can't wait for the military member to go on strike for higher pay. Wish we could have done that years ago when the defense budget wasn't passed, and we were told we might not get paid for a couple weeks. Also can't wait officers to be able to openly date enlisted personnel. And for guys to have long hair. This is going to be great. Seriously???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top