Thanks for speaking the truth.
It’s just more of the same Obama….claim both sides of every issue then however it turns out, claim the credit.

T

We have nothing but cowards in power now. My hopes are not high for changing this.

So you’re saying that, had Obama ended DADT by executive order, there would not have been cries of “black emperor who never served is shoving gays down the military’s throat”? I’m not so sure. In the intervening years the gay rights movement made great strides at the state level paving the way for federal action, or inaction, as the case may be. In fact, one might say that the four years under Obama have been the best years for gay rights than in any four year period of our history.

Time and tide has been on the gay rights movement side for some time now and obviously Obama benefited from it. But it is equally true that sometimes the lack of active resistance can be the greatest conqueror of all.

Don’t be silly — the President has the executive authority to bomb other countries but he doesn’t have the authority as commander-in-chief of the military to change service rules of conduct. /s

I read it as saying that Obama’s argument for the kind of “let’s all come together” leadership he favors isn’t correct. That there would have been in all probability little or no blow back and they could have gone on to other things and left that done three and a half years before it was finally accomplished with a brusing legislative fight.

And the repeal of DADT would not have been a bargaining chip for the extension of the Bush tax cuts in December of 2010

I remember hearing many members of the LGBT community dismiss an Executive Order on the grounds that it would be easily undone by the next Republican president to follow Obama into the White House. They wanted full legislative repeal, which can’t be undone at the drop of a hat.

Seven and a half years in, with really no problems? Well you can believe what you want I guess.

He’s a coward. There’s no lipstick that will make that pig look anything but a pig.

Yes PW in the long run actual repeal was preferable but many of us Gays were mosly upset that they were getting into the court cases.

The generally consensus in the Gay community was that they should have backed off.

It came off as “ploy”, IE the court cases were stealing O’s thunder and he wouldnt be able to take any credit and use it as a 2012 talking point and fundraising issue.

Basically has it been ruled unconstitutional we would have had the same thing and another president couldnt have changed it on a whim

The more cynical gays thought the issue about letting it die in the courts was one of $$$. That people who had been dismissed in the past would have legal recourse to sue for back pay, benefits etc.

Now he could have also just given a command that would have ignored sexuality and not enforced it. But IIRC while all this was going on there were service people being targeted. Similar to how he doesnt care about pot but the DoJ still busts dispenseries.

We were winning in the courts and O could have just let us.

LOL! I love this “Obama can do no right” meme here @ FDL. What fools.

Instead of accepting that many of the things that you’ve fought for have come to pass under Obama, you get stuck on these sorts of inside-gov’t maneuverings.

So Obama didn’t sign an Executive Order. WHO CARES? An EO could have been easily undone by the next president. A legislative answer is a much better answer.

Besides, liberals also pushed Obama to make recess appointments, too, and that even got shot down by conservative judges.

Give Obama at least a little credit for knowing what he’s doing.

Don’t fight the trolls! These kinds of stories @ FDL just bring out the “Obama is the devil” trolls … in troves.

the point really isnt the executive order. this was all in court and he could have just let it slide thru. we didnt did him at that point.

Why is Congress doing the right thing a bad thing that requires a dictatorial preemption of the authority of Congress??

I guess the idea is a unitary executive is the right thing to do because voters can not be trusted with the vote?

Note that Congress in September 2001 declared an endless global war on individuals which requires the commander in chief to use military force against enemy individuals globally, say like rockets from drones. That is the law of the land. For a president and commander in chief to not wage this war is yet another case of dictatorial ovrride of the will of the voters who have repeatedly ratified in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 20010, 2012 the votes of over 525 members of Congress to declare an endless global war on individuals.

Why are voters not to be trusted?

Obama could have issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Defense to suspend homosexual conduct discharges. As Commander-in-Chief in a time of war, as a matter of national security, he can do basically anything he wants.

That last year, after Congress passed the repeal of DADT, Obama could have issued a stop-loss order directing the Pentagon to stop discharging while the Pentagon “studied” how it was going to implement it, but he refused.

Had Obama signed an executive order to end DADT, it would have had the effect of getting people used to it until Congress and/or the Courts ended it permanently. It also would have provided gay troops another legal argument, in that they could argue that once you come out, you can’t unring that bell. There would have been no going back.

If Congress hadn’t repealed DADT by the next presidency, then we’d be years down the line of having lived with a policy that had been in effect for years and any arguments for reinstating DADT (homophobia) would be seriously deflated, making it even easier for that future Congress to repeal DADT. Courts, also, would be working on overturning it during that time, not to mention a real advocate in the White House using the bully pulpit to drive the effort.

Factually, legally and as a practical matter, that simply does not hold water.

Before I get to substance you must know very different gay people than I know because all the ones I know wanted it done ASAP and assumed that an Executive Order would be quicker. Between the time of Obama’s inauguration and repeal, many careers and lives were ruined and one more Jim Crow law was on the books for over two more years. The only ones I heard claiming passage by Congress was preferable were people who defend Obama’s every move (or lack thereof).

The only reasons Obama insisted on Congressional action were (1) political cover for himself, which usually seems to be his first priority, IMO; and (2) he wanted to slow walk repeal until after 2010 midterms.

On the substance, A law passed by Congress is just as vulnerable to repeal or amendment by a succeeding Congress as an Executive Order is vulnerable to amend or repeal by a succeeding President.

Repeal of DADT under Obama itself is a case in point. It undid DADT, which had been passed by an earlier Congress under Clinton.

So, clearly, passage by Congress is not greater a guaranty than signing of an Executive Order.

Further, no succeeding President would have undone a repeal of DADT by Executive Order because it would have been too unpopular, too shameful and too stupid to say that a gay person may serve in the military and may die for his or her country, only so long as they violate the military code of conduct by being deceptive.

This is very different from DOMA in that it involves the military, which for better or worse, both major Parties have now decided to practically deify.

Harry Truman desegregated the military by Executive Order. Bigotry toward African American people was very much still alive and well at that time. Yet, no subsequent President ran on repealing that executive order and none did repeal it. There is less than zero reason to assume a later President would have been so stupid as to reinstate DADT by Executive Order.

I know that is exactly what Bill Clinton got Congress to pass, but it simply does not stand up to examination. Therefore, Clinton got plenty of criticism and he disavowed it after leaving office, just as he disavowed his opposition to gay marriage (when he no longer had to worry about re-election).

An exercise by the President of his Constitutional power as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military by saying gays may serve openly in the military has absolutely nothing to do with the Unitary Executive and even less to do with preemption of Congressional power.

Read the Constitution again.

You are mistaken about the executive order. Please see my reply to Phoenix Woman at #17.

As for who cared about a delay of over two years, probably the members of the military who had careers, lives, and relationships ruined while lied that he had no power to act without Congress while he slow walked this until after midterms.

As for trolling, IMO that is a very good name for posts that attack other posters and seek to silence them, instead of sticking to substantive issues.

Some at FDL seem to think that it means having views that are different from their own. They are mistaken. By quite a lot, in fsct.

Thanks. I agree that Obama claim of huge blowback was rewriting history.

When a majority of people disagree with something, it causes blowback whether Congress does it, the President or someone else in the Executive Branch does it, or the SCOTUS does it.

Thanks to everyone who has debunked Obama’s revisionist history.

Federal District Judge Virginia Phillips in California beat Obama to the punch by finding DADT unconstitutional.

This gun-to-the-head from the federal courts is the singular reason why the administration and the Pentagon finally backed down.

Of course, the compromise DADT repeal legislation everyone hails as “permanent” (any Congress could reinstate DADT just as any President can change orders) doesn’t include non-discrimination language like the original versions of DADT repeal. And these Center for American Progress-Obama led compromises allow inequality to fester still as we’ve seen in story after story post DADT repeal.

Actually, I’m on a couple of mailing lists whose members include prominent LGBT activists, and this was discussed quite a bit on that list.

As for discussion outside of it, well, there’s this:

Something to consider about this. If Obama ends it with and executive order, any future President could reinstate the policy with an executive order. If the government does not actively pursue the case, there is not chance of getting a definitive court judgment that would bind any future President and the military chain of command.

That said, it’s pretty risky betting that the Supreme Court will strike it down or refuse to hear it. And the defense authorization bill for FY 2011, like all of the appropriations bills, is still awaiting Congressional approval–and that would deal with it legislatively.

And this:

The DADT language in the current Defense Authorization Bill gives the President (and his top military advisors) the ability to repeal DADT. That’s all.

In no way does it say what has to be put in its place. Could be open service. Could be a total ban. And the next president would have the option to completely change it again.

It’s not ‘revisionist’ if it’s what he’s been saying all along, whether or not one agrees with it.

There is also this, from the same time period:

I have looked into this, and I believe Ms. Monroe is incorrect that Obama could unilaterally end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by Executive Order, because of the action of the 103 Congress in codifying into law the DADT policy. The policy restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654) enacted in 1994 in the Defense Authorization Act. For this reason, Congressional action is required to reverse the DADT policy.

The point is still we didnt need his freaking executive order. We did it on our own.

He stifled the court actions so he and his cronies could take credit for it.