Slog Comments

look.

@13
"1) You're wrong, plain and simple. From the very beginning it is precisely the job of the judiciary to, "say what the law is." (Marbury v. Madison). The President doesn't have, nor has he ever had, the authority to declare laws unconstitutional."

you're 100% wrong. he may not act unconstitutionally. he must follow what the courts say but IF there is an unconstitutional law, he has to decide that.

You descend into irrelevancy talking about standing and ripeness etc.

"2) "There's some kind of thing.."? This sentence doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense."

Yes there is some part of DADT that's diff. from other laws that does invite nonenforcement by the prez. Perhaps I should be able to quote it but I am too lazy to do so, tough shit.

"Even if there were a provision in DADT that allowed Obama to suspend the law (which there isn't), he would be breaching his constitutional duty as President by trying to repeal it through executive order."

UM, no, he wouldn't, not if there is something that let's him do it. You're arguing in circles.

"This is a matter of well-settled law, and is never up for debate."

Typical lawyet self declaring bullshit; not an actual argument.

"3) The "technical" point I am making is based on the legislative process this country engages in through the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Yes, it may be a nagging document, but it still is Supreme."

You're wrong, wrong wrong in your thesis that each person in teh government has to follow laws that are unconstitutional. This is the Nuremberg defense. IF the law or regulation or whatever is unconstitutional it's illegal for the officer of the govt. to follow it you dumbshit.

Example: Alabama state legislature passes a law requiring schoolkids to pray to Jesus every morning or else be fined $5. No suit has been filed. Guess what you pompous dickhead....the Governor, the secretary of education, the principals, and the teachers, are supposed to go read the constitution and figure out it's unconstitutional and NOT ENFORCE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW because we have the rule of law. So put your pompous snarkery away and get with the constitution brother.

"4) Don't get pissy about my profession" -- not attacking your profession, just you --"just because you're ignorant and wrong."

did you go to law school in the third grade school yard?

"I don't come down to Cuffs and knock the dick out of your mouth."

?? I would respond in kind about yours, but de minimus non curat lex.

And more. Because I hate douchebag lawyers.

1. according to the idio view that the president has no power to consider whether laws are constitutional, think of this.

Say congress passes a law making Rush Limbaugh president for life, and saying the Supreme Court members are to be killed and the courts abolished immediately. as per the idjit lawyer, the president has to carry out this law, unless or until there's a ruling from the supreme court telling him not to. but since the law says he has to kill the supreme court, well, that lawsuit isn't going to come in time. what an idiot conclusion.

2. I am right in saying there is something in DADT letting exec order end it, legally, contrary to the ill informed argument of the idjit lawyer.

from the palm center (located in 2 seconds googling DADT executive order) we see this:

Contact: Indra Lusero, Assistant Director, Palm Center, 805-893-5664, lusero@palmcenter.ucsb.edu

SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 11, 2009 – A study released by the Palm Center and written by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order.
....Prior to the release of Palm's study, many had argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. ....First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation” Under the law “the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States” during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.” [so dear pompous ill informed lawyerman, that's reason no. 1 you're wrong, wrong wrong].
The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation itself. [I TOLD YOU SO.]The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense… in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation." Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members “if” a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the “authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made.”

AND REMEMBER, Obama isn't even trying to repeal the laws anyway.

Your apology for being wrong, wrong, wrong will be graciously accepted.

ok, LET'S SUMMARIZE.

1. EVERYONE HAS TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, so if the prez thinks a law is unconstitutional, he should not, and must not , enforce it. Now if a court tells him to enforce it, of course, he has to. But the idjit lawyer has forgotten the other side of the coin which is the president and any govt. officer is bound by the constitution. So if congress passes a lawy saying the supreme court is to be killed immediately, hey dimwit, the president is supposed to disobey that unconstitutional law. This does not negate the MArbury holding that the courts are supreme over exec. or leg. in saying what the law is, it merely says if they have not ruled the president also gets to say what the constitution means because other wise we are in Nuremberg defense land.

So, I'm right, Dan is right, and you're wrong.

2. AS we have quoted the USC giving prez. power to suspend in matter of military separation, PLUS we have now cited the language from DADT saying everything is as per executive procedures and nothing requires firing someone because they're gay, again, we're right, and you're wrong.

3. and again, the fact that to repeal a law yes you go to congress is an asshole point to make in typical lawyerly anal asshole fashion IN THIS CONTEXT because OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO CONGRESS DEMANDING THE REPEAL OF DADT.

So stop arguing about the technicalities of HOW he does it, the point is he's NOT FIGHTING TO CHANGE THE LAW, douchebags.

4.As far as out snarking if you believe I have outsnarked you, then so be it. Snarkiness in defense of right is no snark.

So again for the esp. dimwitted: He's not trying to repeal it; he doesn't have to repeal it under the bases stated in the palm center study; and should he believe it's unconstitutional, and should the USSCT not have ruled on that, he must not enforce it.

end of debate. You have quoted MArbury when it does not say the president must follow Nuremberg defense you have been wrong there was "something in DADT letting him suspend it" and your point that you have to repeal laws is like so stupid when in fact he's not trying to repeal it, either.

Since you present no arguments worthy of the name, I am making an executive decision to suspend this argument in favor of playing in the sunshine.

We're on a cruise, people.
It's a big ship, there are thousands of us.
Obama is the captain.

Alas, things are tense...
we're in freezing Northern waters,
it's inky dark out, no moon.
The ship is headed straight for a huge iceberg.
At full speed.
The rudder is stuck.
There are only lifeboats for a tenth of us.
(the big donors)
The waters are shark infested.
And polluted
Also a Zodiac inflatable raft full of terrorists has pulled along side the ship.
They have weapons of mass destruction.
Painful lingering mass destruction.
(real ones. really. for sure...)
Also the Cruise Line is on the verge of bankruptcy.

We have faith in Obama.
(He came highly recommended...)
But we can see the disasters looming closer.
And closer.
We are pulling for Obama.
We are hopeful.

Obama is in the pilot house.
Struggling with the rudder.
It may be responding a little?
He is giving orders to deal with the terrorist.
We may just make it after all...

Suddenly a piercing wailing shriek cuts the air.
It is the most annoying grating whining ever heard.
The kind that makes you want to rip your own ears off your head.
It gets louder.
Someone is banging on the door of the pilot house.
Obama is distracted.
The iceberg looms...
The terrorists are scrambling up the ship's sides...

It seem that a little boy got jello instead of pudding.
Green jello.
Not chocolate pudding.
He's not happy.
And he wants his pudding.
now.

From his behavior we would guess he is two
but he looks older.
(much older)

Nothing will shut him up.
Obama promises him there will be gallons of pudding-
just as soon as he is done with what he is doing now.
Chocolate pudding.
Even whipped cream.
In just a minute...

But the little boy wants his pudding.

NOW.

Why marching matters

At a time when many people are disoriented and angry over Barack Obama's retreats and concessions to the right, the lesson is clear: we need to take action.

October 9, 2009 | Issue 707 [2]

THE NATIONAL Equality March for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights is sending a message to Washington--and setting an important example for everyone who wants to see progressive social change.

At a time when liberals, labor leaders and the left are increasingly angry, but mostly inactive, about the Obama administration's concessions to Republicans and the right, a new generation of LGBT activists are taking the initiative.

The demands of the march--federal legislation outlawing all discrimination against LGBT people--ought to be easily achievable. If, that is, the Democrats who control the White House and Congress would only make good on longstanding promises.

But they haven't. President Barack Obama has yet to act on his campaign pledge to push for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples.

Nor has Obama moved to end the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the military, even though the policy has caused thousands of LGBT people to be witch-hunted out of the armed forces.

Instead, LGBT people--like many others who looked to Obama's presidency with a sense of hope--have had to wait in line as the bankers and the Pentagon brass stake their claim on the U.S. Treasury and Obama's political capital.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE OBAMA administration's refusal to push the repeal of DOMA helped spur veteran gay activist Cleve Jones, a collaborator with assassinated gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk, to back a grassroots call for a national march on Washington to demand full rights for LGBT people, including marriage.

As Jones put it in a speech in Chicago in September, "We don't have a laundry list for this march. We're marching for one demand, and one demand only. It's called the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We are a people protected in all places governed by civil law in all 50 states, period. That's what we're fighting for.

"I believe we're equal. If you believe we're equal, it's time to act like it. A free and equal people do not settle for compromises. We do not accept timelines where we can't get that this year, but maybe if we fight for five years, we can get marriage in 20 years, and on and on. No--now is the time."

At first, established national LGBT groups and leaders were lukewarm--or even hostile--to the march. The argument was familiar: Activists have to give the Obama administration time to build political support for controversial legislation like repealing DOMA and "don't ask, don't tell," or passing the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

The provisions in ENDA--which in its current version includes transgender people--are badly needed. The legislation would prohibit employers from firing workers for being gay--which is legal in 30 states. In 38 states, people can be fired for being transgender.

But while Obama supports ENDA, it hasn't been a legislative priority, and is essentially sidetracked. And while Obama claims to stand behind his campaign pledge to repeal DOMA, his Justice Department earlier this year filed a court brief in support of this reactionary law.

All this is a bitter pill to LGBT people who looked to Obama to deliver "change we can believe in" on this issue--and it's reason enough for a national march to demand action.

But the trigger for the new LGBT activism was last November's passage in California of the Proposition 8 referendum that overturned same-sex marriage. Amid celebrations of Obama's victory in cities across the country, LGBT people and their supporters organized protest marches throughout California, and found a response across the country as well.

Many of those who led the protests had never been politically active before. Young people were at the core of new organizations like One Struggle, One Fight and Join the Impact. Friends and acquaintances networked through Facebook and Twitter, posted flyers in neighborhoods frequented by LGBT people, and mobilized hundreds, and even thousands, for protests to demand same-sex marriage and equality.

It was this activism that spurred Cleve Jones to endorse the grassroots demand for a national march for LGBT rights. And the enthusiastic response to Jones' efforts, in turn, has pushed establishment gay organizations that initially opposed the march into changing course. While these groups remain closely tied to the Democratic Party, the fact that they've had to shift under pressure reflects the growing grassroots movement.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SOME MIGHT conclude that LGBT activism and the march have taken off because of special circumstances--mainly, that the right has focused on attacking LGBT people as the last respectable bigotry, and that the Prop 8 issue spurred people into action.

But a closer look shows that the new LGBT movement has been produced by the same hard times--and hopes--shared by the working-class majority in this country.

Consider the effects of the economic crisis on LGBT people. At a time when jobs are harder to find than at any time in decades, the cost of being fired for one's sexual orientation is more devastating than ever. Further, with health care benefits being reduced or canceled, gays or lesbians who can't marry their partners have fewer opportunities to get coverage through their partners.

And the problem isn't just health care: according to New York Times reporters Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber, same-sex couples are routinely cut out of their partner's pensions and Social Security benefits--and they take a hit on taxes, too. "Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage," the writers found.

Those on the left who have criticized LGBT activists for focusing on marriage have completely missed the point: The issue is social and economic equality, and the recession has made the struggle to achieve it even more urgent.

In fact, class issues and solidarity have been central to the new LGBT activism. In Chicago, for instance, activists demonstrating for equal marriage joined protests in support of the Republic Windows & Doors factory occupation in December, and striking workers from SK Hand Tools attended a Cleve Jones speech in Chicago to ask for support.

Far from being a special case on the left, the LGBT movement is shaped by both the economic crisis and the widespread hope for political change following the disaster of the Bush years. What sets the activists apart is only the fact that small groups of people started organizing.

At a time when many are disoriented and angry over Obama's retreat on health care reform and other issues, the lesson is clear: we need to take action.

And as the economic crisis drags onward, others are drawing that conclusion. The huge statewide walkout by students, faculty and workers across the University of California system September 24 reflected the same fighting spirit seen during the Republic Windows & Doors occupation last December and on scores of LGBT protests since then. This should be a wake-up call to union leaders, who have so far have bowed to employer demands for pay cuts, furloughs and the elimination of jobs, both in the public and private sector.

In that sense, the National Equality March isn't only the culmination of months of organizing for LGBT activism. It marks a renewal of the kind of activism that's needed on every front--from fighting for meaningful health care reform, to struggling for jobs and the rights of workers to organize.

The new LGBT activism recalls the central lesson of U.S. history--that social progress only comes through struggle. Ironically, during his presidential campaign, Barack Obama himself repeatedly invoked the history of U.S. social movements as he asked for support. At one debate with his Democratic rivals, Obama declined to claim that Martin Luther King would have supported him, and said that King "would call on the American people to hold us accountable."

Fortunately, thousands of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are doing just that--mobilizing to hold Obama accountable for his promises of change. It's an example that should be followed everywhere.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

What you can do
The National Equality March will begin at Noon on October 11 and end on the West lawn of the Capitol building. The march will be followed by a rally starting at around 2 p.m.

For a full schedule of the National Equality March weekend events, including several workshops sponsored by national LGBT organizations, visit the National Equality March Web site [3].

Students who will be marching on October 11 are invited to join the march's student contingent, which will be gathering at the Ellipse beginning at 10 a.m, and then march as a block to join the National Equality March at.

For more information, call 773-616-0230 or e-mail keeanga@u.northwestern.edu [4].