After Hours

General discussion

Locked

Gays Serving in the U.S. Military - Who should decide?

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Disclaimer: My personal position is two-fold:

One: A person's sexual preference and/or practice is his/her own business. I don't know whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice or birth, nor do I care. It's not my business what you do; it's not your business what I do.

Two: Serving in the military IS NOT a Constitutional right. The military can indeed discriminate for a variety of reasons (sorry, you have flat-foot), all of which are implemented for the purpose of maintaining the most effective military force possible. If you disagree, please show me the exact article of the Constitution that shows me to be wrong. The mission of the military is to be the most effective fighting force - no more, no less.

Having said that, whether or not gays are allowed to serve in the military is a question that I would pass on to the military experts; I'd yield to their opinion.

What's yours?

Edited to change the title and add the following content:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=337373&messageID=3376274&tag=content;leftCol

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I know it was passed by Congress - that's what I said

by maxwell edison In reply to This was passed by Congre ...

And I also know that only the courts can rule an act of Congress illegal.

Collapse -

Well, then the President can't overrule it.

by DelbertPGH In reply to I know it was passed by C ...

The executive has to enforce and support the laws passed by Congress, until they expire or are reversed. Since Don't Ask was passed by Congress, issuing an executive order to the contrary would be illegal.

Collapse -

Delbert - two points

by maxwell edison In reply to I know it was passed by C ...

The president can indeed overturn congressional legislation through the veto process. Yes, I know that Congress can override a presidential veto, but it takes 2/3 majority, not a simple majority.

Moreover, when it comes to the armed forces, the president, as I've repeatedly said, is the Commander in Chief. Congress is not the Commander in Chief, the president is. As such, I might believe that in the case of military matters, the president could indeed override congressional legislation. If Congress was intended to be the Commander in Chief Panel, then it would have been written into the Constitution as such; instead, the president is given that role.

And as you, yourself, pointed out, only the courts can declare something illegal. Just because you say something would be illegal, it doesn't mean it would be. Acknowledging, of course, that neither of us is a legal scholar.

Collapse -

Priceless!

by Oz_Media In reply to I know it was passed by C ...

Which one of you is playing Arthur?

DENNIS I told you. We?re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

ARTHUR Yes.

DENNIS But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.

ARTHUR Yes, I see.

DENNIS By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs?

ARTHUR Be quiet!

DENNIS ?but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more?

ARTHUR Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

WOMAN Order, eh?who does he think he is?

ARTHUR I am your king!

WOMAN Well, I didn?t vote for you.

Collapse -

No, to both points

by DelbertPGH In reply to I know it was passed by C ...

Although the President can veto Congress's law, that is only possible within the ten days following Congress's vote. After that time elapses, it's settled law.

I think the only time the President could get away with overriding legislation in his capacity as commander in chief would be in an outright emergency, in which national security was at immediate risk.

Of course, there are plenty of points where the President will somewhat fudge execution of a law, knowing that Congress will not impeach over the small stuff; and Congress would in some cases be happy not to have to debate and be held accountable for a law.

Collapse -

That's the loophole Delbert

by Oz_Media In reply to I know it was passed by C ...

National security risk. Issuing such a state of emergency would never be abused of course.

Collapse -

The "inability to override"

by TonytheTiger In reply to 100% speculation follows

has nothing to do with its status as a law and everything to do with what's in the hearts and minds of men.

Frankly, if you can't "handle" being around someone who's different from you, that's YOUR problem.

Collapse -

Well said (nt)

by cmiller5400 In reply to One retiree's opinion.
Collapse -

Multiple Choice Question: Constitutionally, who should make the call?

by maxwell edison In reply to One retiree's opinion.

1. The President (Commander in Chief)
2. Congress
3. The Courts
4. Other (explain)

My answer: 1

Collapse -

See '100%' above.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Multiple Choice Question: ...

I agree that is SHOULD be the chief exec., but since Congress passed the law and the pres. (Clinton?) didn't veto it, he ceded the authority to make that decision.

I'm from a state where the governor can't break wind without legislative position. If you the US chief exec has limits on his authority, try this place. Every cabinet-level office in the Exec. branch is elected; the Gov. doesn't appoint any of them, or run as a ticket with the Lt. Gov. Budget decisions? He has a seat on a committee of five; the other four are the party leaders from both houses. Compared to this place, the 'DADT' decision is kindergarten art show.

Related Discussions

Related Forums