Still no mention of a federal courtdoing what congress couldn't doon Don't Ask Don't Tell? Like the article says though, the Obama administration is expected to appeal. Hm. ):<</p>
Does this court even have the power to overturn DADT? Doesn't Article 1 Section 8 leave regulation of the army clearly in the hands of the legislature and the legislature only?
, the Obama administration is expected to appeal. Hm. ):<</p>
The administration has to defend laws that are already on the book (that's the justice departments job) However, what they will do is defend it by saying it's unconstitutional and should be stopped in Congress.
"The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them. But Walter Dellinger, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said an appeal could make clear that the president believes the law is unconstitutional, an approach President Bill Clinton took in 1996 concerning a law that would have required the discharge of HIV-positive service members from the military. "
Does this court even have the power to overturn DADT? Doesn't Article 1 Section 8 leave regulation of the army clearly in the hands of the legislature and the legislature only?
Why wouldn't a Federal Court have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of an act of Congress? What, exactly, is it that you have a problem with here? Please explain and please be specific about why you don't think that this court had jurisdiction to decide this issue.
My problem is that overturning DADT (act of congress) puts us back where we were before. It does not allow for gays to openly serve in the military because the UCMJ remains unchanged. It is a step backwards not forwards, yet it is being hailed as a win for gay rights.
Overturning DADT is a red herring. Congress needs to ammend the UCMJ to allow for gays to openly serve in the armed for forces.
My problem is that overturning DADT (act of congress) puts us back where we were before. It does not allow for gays to openly serve in the military because the UCMJ remains unchanged. It is a step backwards not forwards, yet it is being hailed as a win for gay rights.
Overturning DADT is a red herring. Congress needs to ammend the UCMJ to allow for gays to openly serve in the armed for forces.
If that were the case, then how could the judge have ordered discharges to stop?
My problem is that overturning DADT (act of congress) puts us back where we were before. It does not allow for gays to openly serve in the military because the UCMJ remains unchanged. It is a step backwards not forwards, yet it is being hailed as a win for gay rights.
Overturning DADT is a red herring. Congress needs to ammend the UCMJ to allow for gays to openly serve in the armed for forces.
If that were the case, then how could the judge have ordered discharges to stop?
Exactly my point. While this judge has the authority to rule on the legality of DADT does she have the authority to change the UCMJ article dealing with sodomy? For those who may not know anything other than vaginal intercourse is defined as sodomy under article 125 of the UCMJ.
My problem is that overturning DADT (act of congress) puts us back where we were before. It does not allow for gays to openly serve in the military because the UCMJ remains unchanged. It is a step backwards not forwards, yet it is being hailed as a win for gay rights.
Overturning DADT is a red herring. Congress needs to ammend the UCMJ to allow for gays to openly serve in the armed for forces.
If that were the case, then how could the judge have ordered discharges to stop?
The judge found that the Plaintiff(s) proved that they are entitled to an injunction against enforcement of DADT. She also ordered the Plaintiff(s) to provide her a Proposed Judgment. Here's her Opinion.
The judge entered their Order, pretty much as they had written it. Here's her Order. As you can see, she enjoined actions taken under DADT and its implementing regulations. Now, you should ask yourself, "What would be included in the list of regulations that serve to implement DADT? Is it possible that the UCMJ article that Steve thinks is a problem has been used to implement DADT in the past?" This judge would say, "Yes."
Also, any move now to enforce the UMCJ on its face would likely get the Defendants held in contempt. Judges generally don't take kindly to Defendants violating the spirit of an injunction in such a way.
Don't listen to Steve. He doesn't know what he's talking about (you can tell by how quickly he backed off his first assertion that the judge did not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of DADT), and in this case, he's just trying to (dare I say it?) move the goalposts (I despise this cliche, but for what Steve is trying to do, it actually means what it's supposed to mean).
Don't listen to Steve. He doesn't know what he's talking about (you can tell by how quickly he backed off his first assertion that the judge did not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of DADT), and in this case, he's just trying to (dare I say it?) move the goalposts (I despise this cliche, but for what Steve is trying to do, it actually means what it's supposed to mean).
Not to defend Steve AGAIN, but I'm pretty sure he just didn't have a understanding of the law. I know I wasn't completely sure about how the UMCJ factored into it as well.
As usual Cremlian is correct and Joe has not answered how/where this judges gained her authority to rule on the UCMJ. Doesn't 867a. ART 67A specifically state that appeals must go directly to SCOTUS?
As usual Cremlian is correct and Joe has not answered how/where this judges gained her authority to rule on the UCMJ. Doesn't 867a. ART 67A specifically state that appeals must go directly to SCOTUS?
Was the case ever before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces? No? If not, your post is a non sequitur, "as usual".
I guess maybe the well-schooled, trained, and experienced Defendant's counsel in this case missed that particularly salient procedural defense in their months and years of working and thinking about this case that your brief internet search turned up. Too bad they didn't just consult you.
BTW, "867a. ART 67A" is a non sequitur in and of itself without further citation and/or identification of source, such as "10 U.S.C. § 867a" or such. See, you actually have to tell what source you're citing to, or no one knows whether you mean the U.S. Tax Code, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, or a hundred other things; but you wouldn't know that, would you?
Look, even you should be able to understand this. The Plaintiff(s) sought the civil remedy of injunction. There was some civil procedure involved and bloppity bloppity blah. The case finally appeared before a federal judge who reviewed the constitutionality of an act of congress, which is specifically within her court's subject-matter jurisdiction and who found that the Plaintif(s) were entitled to an injunction. She found that the governmental action was unconstitutional and granted the injunction. Bada bing Bada boom. Done.
Steve, stop trying to show how smart you are. It just throws your ignorance into sharper relief.
The only article I see mentioned is 137. Does this ruling mean the military is not allowed to follow article 137?
Where does this judge derive her power to rule on the UCMJ, something that is clearly prohibited in the Constitution?
Is there any data on the discharges under DADT? I'm curious to see how many were initiated by the service member seeking an exit from military service and how many were initiated by command seeking to boot out an openly gay service member.
Just because DADT gets overturned doesn't mean homosexuals can't just lie about their sexuality. It's not like their commanding officers can force them to have sex with a woman to prove they're straight or anything.
Just because DADT gets overturned doesn't mean homosexuals can't just lie about their sexuality. It's not like their commanding officers can force them to have sex with a woman to prove they're straight or anything.
Just because DADT gets overturned doesn't mean homosexuals can't just lie about their sexuality. It's not like their commanding officers can force them to have sex with a woman to prove they're straight or anything.
That's not really the point...
. . . but it might be a good way to trick your way into some weird sex.
"Hey, First Segeant, I think I might be gay." "You goldbrick! Now I want you to have hot sex with this army whore we've trained especially for this type of situation." "Uhh . . . no, no. Don't make me have filthy sex with the filthy army whore. Don't throw me into the briar patch, B'rer Fox." "You'll have sex with her and you'll like it, or else you're out of the Army." "Oh well. I reckon I'll haveta have sex with you ma'am."
Just because DADT gets overturned doesn't mean homosexuals can't just lie about their sexuality. It's not like their commanding officers can force them to have sex with a woman to prove they're straight or anything.
That's not really the point...
. . . but it might be a good way to trick your way into some weird sex.
"Hey, First Segeant, I think I might be gay." "You goldbrick! Now I want you to have hot sex with this army whore we've trained especially for this type of situation." "Uhh . . . no, no. Don't make me have filthy sex with the filthy army whore. Don't throw me into the briar patch, B'rer Fox." "You'll have sex with her and you'll like it, or else you're out of the Army." "Oh well. I reckon I'll haveta have sex with you ma'am."
Just because DADT gets overturned doesn't mean homosexuals can't just lie about their sexuality. It's not like their commanding officers can force them to have sex with a woman to prove they're straight or anything.
That's not really the point...
. . . but it might be a good way to trick your way into some weird sex.
"Hey, First Segeant, I think I might be gay." "You goldbrick! Now I want you to have hot sex with this army whore we've trained especially for this type of situation." "Uhh . . . no, no. Don't make me have filthy sex with the filthy army whore. Don't throw me into the briar patch, B'rer Fox." "You'll have sex with her and you'll like it, or else you're out of the Army." "Oh well. I reckon I'll haveta have sex with you ma'am."
US Army Ho Division: Be all the Sexy you can be.
They protect our troops from teh gay - and learn valuable skills for civilian life.
Fox News didn't say that, Fox News reported that Admiral Mullen said that.And they've also reported on other people saying the opposite.No need to get excited here, folks. :P
It was a stretch but still, they're actually being fair and balanced-ish.
Comments
"The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them. But Walter Dellinger, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said an appeal could make clear that the president believes the law is unconstitutional, an approach President Bill Clinton took in 1996 concerning a law that would have required the discharge of HIV-positive service members from the military. "
Overturning DADT is a red herring. Congress needs to ammend the UCMJ to allow for gays to openly serve in the armed for forces.
The judge entered their Order, pretty much as they had written it. Here's her Order. As you can see, she enjoined actions taken under DADT and its implementing regulations. Now, you should ask yourself, "What would be included in the list of regulations that serve to implement DADT? Is it possible that the UCMJ article that Steve thinks is a problem has been used to implement DADT in the past?" This judge would say, "Yes."
Also, any move now to enforce the UMCJ on its face would likely get the Defendants held in contempt. Judges generally don't take kindly to Defendants violating the spirit of an injunction in such a way.
Don't listen to Steve. He doesn't know what he's talking about (you can tell by how quickly he backed off his first assertion that the judge did not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of DADT), and in this case, he's just trying to (dare I say it?) move the goalposts (I despise this cliche, but for what Steve is trying to do, it actually means what it's supposed to mean).
I guess maybe the well-schooled, trained, and experienced Defendant's counsel in this case missed that particularly salient procedural defense in their months and years of working and thinking about this case that your brief internet search turned up. Too bad they didn't just consult you.
BTW, "867a. ART 67A" is a non sequitur in and of itself without further citation and/or identification of source, such as "10 U.S.C. § 867a" or such. See, you actually have to tell what source you're citing to, or no one knows whether you mean the U.S. Tax Code, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, or a hundred other things; but you wouldn't know that, would you?
Look, even you should be able to understand this. The Plaintiff(s) sought the civil remedy of injunction. There was some civil procedure involved and bloppity bloppity blah. The case finally appeared before a federal judge who reviewed the constitutionality of an act of congress, which is specifically within her court's subject-matter jurisdiction and who found that the Plaintif(s) were entitled to an injunction. She found that the governmental action was unconstitutional and granted the injunction. Bada bing Bada boom. Done.
Steve, stop trying to show how smart you are. It just throws your ignorance into sharper relief.
The only article I see mentioned is 137. Does this ruling mean the military is not allowed to follow article 137?
Where does this judge derive her power to rule on the UCMJ, something that is clearly prohibited in the Constitution?
Is there any data on the discharges under DADT? I'm curious to see how many were initiated by the service member seeking an exit from military service and how many were initiated by command seeking to boot out an openly gay service member.
Sounds like a pretty small-time place.
wat
"Hey, First Segeant, I think I might be gay."
"You goldbrick! Now I want you to have hot sex with this army whore we've trained especially for this type of situation."
"Uhh . . . no, no. Don't make me have filthy sex with the filthy army whore. Don't throw me into the briar patch, B'rer Fox."
"You'll have sex with her and you'll like it, or else you're out of the Army."
"Oh well. I reckon I'll haveta have sex with you ma'am."
Wait...Fox News? Really?