The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-05-2010, 09:17 PM   #1
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
My understanding is that DADT is a law passed by Congress.

If any President/CIC were to issue such an order defying that law, it could be an impeachable offense.
Maybe my understanding is not correct, so enlighten me...

One of the issues Obama campaigned on was elimination of DADT.
Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn DADT.
Obama has had several opportunities to take the route of issuing an order as CIC,
but instead he has taken the route of formally appealing (via the Dept of Justice) the issue up thru the federal courts.

So, I ask you very specifically: why do you believe Obama is refraining from issuing an order as CIC to overturn DADT ?
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2010, 09:45 AM   #2
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
My understanding is that DADT is a law passed by Congress.

If any President/CIC were to issue such an order defying that law, it could be an impeachable offense.
Maybe my understanding is not correct, so enlighten me...
Look up the definition of impeachable events for our president and enlighten yourself.

Quote:
One of the issues Obama campaigned on was elimination of DADT.
Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn DADT.
Obama has had several opportunities to take the route of issuing an order as CIC,
but instead he has taken the route of formally appealing (via the Dept of Justice) the issue up thru the federal courts.

So, I ask you very specifically: why do you believe Obama is refraining from issuing an order as CIC to overturn DADT ?
Because in the shadow of the elections he was not about to do another thing that would jeopardize votes. He promised to get it repealed and he has not done so. Just like he promised to close Gitmo, which he has not. It could overturned in the short term with the stroke of a pen and then let the courts deal with it. In the mean time it would send a clear signal where he stands on the issue and then pass it off to a final arbitrator. In the mean time those in Congress can take the time to form a bill that would support his edict.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.