Don’t Ask Don’t Tell may well have been a good idea at the time. It was a step beyond “Find Out, Beat Up, Throw Out.” Thank you Bill Clinton for that improvement.
A lot of people don’t realize that DADT was not a Clinton Administration Policy but rather, eventually, a law passed by Congress. As long as a person I like is in the Oval Office, I might be happy with the arrangement that if the President does not like a law, he or she just eliminates it unilaterally. But, actually, that can’t happen without certain other things happening. Also, laws usually get implemented somehow through policy or regulation, which itself is complex.
To me, a litmus test of how well someone understood the democratic process in the US was whether or not they were screaming at Obama to eliminate DADT, the law, unilateralism. I mean, seriously, think about this. A black guy out jogging. Impeachable offense. Teabaggers in power. Connect the dots, people.
But all this is moot today. Don’t Ask Don’t Tall don’t matter no more.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
DADT should have long ago become DADC: Don’t Ask – Don’t Care.
Nonsense. Obama and Clinton, as Commander in Chief, should simply have ordered his armed forces to ignore this discriminatory regulation. Obama should also order a review and reformulation of the existing discriminatory regulations which still prevent transgender people from serving. One of the benefits of an authoritarian institution like the army is that the person at the top can make unilateral decisions. Obama’s lack of moral courage and spineless political calculation is to blame for this – not any democratic principle.
jlcroft, Greg isn’t talking about a democratic principle. He’s talking about working within the political realities of the system we have at the moment. That’s why he mentioned impeachment.
It sucks that it took this long, but by waiting, we did achieve an ending that is much more definitive than it would have been if DADT had been wiped out by executive order. That is a strictly political calculation, but it’s one worth considering.
Actually, I’m talking about the very specific fact that the congress passes the laws and if a president violates them he can be impeached. The Republicans stopped the business of the country and went after Clinton because of a blow job.
Black guy out jogging. Connect the dots. Really.
Obama should also order a review and reformulation of the existing discriminatory regulations which still prevent transgender people from serving
Good idea.
One of the benefits of an authoritarian institution like the army is that the person at the top can make unilateral decisions.
Nuh uh. The benefit of having the military headed by a civilian is that at some level the military has to obey the law, which in turn is passed by the congress and can not be unilaterally abrogated by the president unless directed to do so by a court, after proper challenges have been made.
Obama’s lack of moral courage and spineless political calculation is to blame for this – not any democratic principle.
I’m not sure what you mean by democratic principle. But what prevails here is the law.
What do you mean by “the law”? I would say that constitutional guarantees to freedom and equality trump some discriminatory law passed by congress. DADT was illegal – ats precisely my point.
What do you mean by “the law� I would say that constitutional guarantees to freedom and equality trump some discriminatory law passed by congress. DADT was illegal – ats precisely my point.
I agree that this is true, but did you know that there is a systm? If you think a law violates guaranteed freedom, you don’t actually get to ignore it.
Basic civics.
No, but it means in this case, because the law 1) violated the Constitution and 2) clearly was detrimental to the armed forces (with numerous Arabic speaking specialists and others with vital skills dismissed during a time of war), and because 3) the President takes an oath to defend the Constitution and the United States, that it was his Constitutional responsibility and within his rights to, with an executive order, order his armed forces to ignore the discriminatory legislation while he went about the process of repealing it.
And because I disagree with you on this point doesn’t mean I don’t understand basic civics. I simply interpret them differently (and in line with many informed commentators on this subject).