Obama to take on military gay ban at `right time'

[Valmy]

I think we should ban all posters without military experience.

I dated a couple of women who were in the military so I guess I am safe.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

so the "right time" I guess would be close enough to the next election to help sway voters?

[Agelastus]

I think we should ban all posters without military experience.

My knowledge of war movies, wargames, military history and military fiction would still ban me under your definition of what a poster should be, so all I can say to your idea is

[Faeelin]

Truman did it with an Executive Order - something Obama doesn't want to do.
I wonder how the 'softly, softly' approach will play out.

He did it with an executive order, but Obama wants to avoid that because that's technically verbot- the President can issue orders, but the Constitution is pretty explicit that Congress is in charge of policies and regulations.

My understanding is that Obama can direct the Pentagon not to enforce the order, no?

[Eddie Teach]

I wonder if my avatar colors the perception of my opinions somewhat. 

Not the current one. Your Joker avatar, maybe.

[DontSayBanana]

My understanding is that Obama can direct the Pentagon not to enforce the order, no?

It seems Presidential authority to issue orders is per instance.  A lot of the Constitution is vague, but here's the conflicting passages:

Article 1, Section 8 - Legislative Powers
"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"

Article 2, Section 2 - Presidential Powers
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

My opinion, for what it's worth: the President's position is in the armed forces, while Congress' power is over the armed forces, so the POTUS is subordinate to Congress in this case.

[Faeelin]

I dunno. It sounds like it's the president's job to execute the orders and regulations, just as it's his job to execute laws. So why can he say "don't enforce laws against drug use by medical marijuana growers?" but can't do so here?

[The Minsky Moment]

Article II  requires the President to faithfully execute the laws.  This means (in my view) that the President has to enforce the laws of the United States in good faith regardless of his personal views, with two exceptions:

1) The President can take his own view (different from that of Congress) as to a law's constitutionality, and legitimately choose not to enforce an enactment he or she in good faith believes to be unconstitutional, up until the point that the Supreme Court pronounces otherwise (there is still some argument about the latter point but the more accepted view at this point in history is that the Supreme Court has the final word on such matters barring an amendment)

2) The President and the Attorney General, in their role as law enforcement officers, can legitimately make decisions about how to allocate limited law enforcement resources - and therefore choose not to focus enforcement efforts in a particular area.

[Berkut]

I agree with MM, and think that gives plenty of latitude for the CiC to simply instruct the DoD to not spend precious resources enforcing "dadt".

He could further declare that under wartime conditions, within his roll as CiC and under his authority to protect the US that continued decline in the ability of the military to execute its mission, it is necessary to end discrimination against homosexuals.

Hell, if he can free the slaves using that argument, surely he can quit persecuting homos.

[Berkut]

I would like to call this "don't ask, don't tell, and we won't listen even if you do so get back to work".

[Faeelin]

He could further declare that under wartime conditions, within his roll as CiC and under his authority to protect the US that continued decline in the ability of the military to execute its mission, it is necessary to end discrimination against homosexuals.

I suppose we've seen the military use the stop loss to keep 60k troops in the military after their enlistment was up. What's the hold up in using it for the gays and lesbians he ostensibly wants to remain in the military?

[Fate]

He could further declare that under wartime conditions, within his roll as CiC and under his authority to protect the US that continued decline in the ability of the military to execute its mission, it is necessary to end discrimination against homosexuals.

I suppose we've seen the military use the stop loss to keep 60k troops in the military after their enlistment was up. What's the hold up in using it for the gays and lesbians he ostensibly wants to remain in the military?

Those 60k troops were actually useful. The gays and lesbians will negatively effect the military.

[citizen k]

The gays and lesbians will negatively effect the military.

The real Fate would vehemently disagree. Not to mention certain studies. 

[BuddhaRhubarb]

He could further declare that under wartime conditions, within his roll as CiC and under his authority to protect the US that continued decline in the ability of the military to execute its mission, it is necessary to end discrimination against homosexuals.

This seems completely reasonable... whatever the law is in peacetime, the US is  knee deep in two wars that aren't ending anytime soon. turning away anyone (let alone all your translators) who is physically capable is beyond stupid unless you reinstate the draft.

[DontSayBanana]

This seems completely reasonable... whatever the law is in peacetime, the US is  knee deep in two wars that aren't ending anytime soon. turning away anyone (let alone all your translators) who is physically capable is beyond stupid unless you reinstate the draft.

That's part of the problem; the bureaucracy surrounding military regulation doesn't really do "reasonable."