What authority, you ignorant jackass? You are so utterly ignorant concerning the weight of executive authority it is laughable. What article, section, and clause of the Constitution do you cite for this authority? The Supreme Court has never upheld the executive authority of a President single-handedly repealing democratically-enacted legislation. See, the fundamental problem with you, Dan Savage, is that you oversimplify complex and nuanced subject matters to purposely misinform your readers. The second problem with you is that you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're not a lawyer or a legal analyst in any sense of the term. Fuck, you're barely even qualified to *READ* the constitution, let alone analyze constitutional issues. And yes, Executive authority and its limits regarding a bicameral legislative process is squarely a Constitutional issue.

I'm all for repealing DADT and DOMA, but I'd prefer to engage in real legal discussions with qualified people, rather than simply speak in platitudes about "Mr. Fierce". It might make you feel better, but it is meaningless. Why don't blog about the Massachusetts legal challenge to DOMA on 10th Amendment grounds? Those of us interested in relevant debate would love it.

My Facebook wall is plastered!

Barack Obama has just won the Junior Vasity League Bowling trophy at Acme Lanes in Tukwila!

Let's call him President Brunswick!

@4 Wow, you can read! But a newspaper article isn't a binding source of law. Moreover, what you just quoted was about *POLITICIANS* talking about their eventual goals. Their comments still don't go to the fundamental flaw in your "argument": Obama doesn't have the authority to repeal laws simply because he doesn't agree with them. Such a system would be the opposite of everything that the legal process in this country stands for. What if W could have simply repealed Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was a pain to his management-friendly contributors? The proper response from those of us interested in an end to the draconian effects of DOMA and DADT is to put support behind Harry Reid's bill repealing DADT. This is the only way it is gonna be done: By pressuring your congressmen to repeal these laws through the legislative powers granted to them under Article I. Politicians respond to one thing for sure: votes. Let them know that they won't be getting yours if they don't represent your interests. You're way out of your league on this one, Dan. Stop lying, and start becoming educated.

@6 He doesn't do it because he, unlike yourself, has read the constitution.

Again, Dan, citing to yourself is not a binding or legit source of authority. Didn't they teach you this in Journalism 101? Oh, I guess that's because you don't have a degree in journalism. What is your degree in, again? Cuckholding? Stick to what you know, moron.

@10 No, No, No! That is not how a law gets repealed. Maybe they should of held you back a second time for second grade? Executive Orders never have had that type of broad authority.

hey legal asshole:

1. constitution trumps all written laws, so if prez decides DADT or DOMA are unconstitutional denial of equal protection he not only should, but must, stop enforcing illegal, unconstitutional laws.

no, executive branch isn't supposed to wait for judicial branch to rule on it, executive branch swears to uphold the constitution, remember dimwit?

2. there's some kind of built in thing in DADT letting the prez stop enforcing it.

3. while you make a super anal stupid technical legal point that legislation should be repealed, point is, Obama ISN'T trying to repeal it either, so STFU legal douchebag.

@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. It is simply beyond the purview of his powers. The executive branch doesn't have to "wait" per se for the judicial branch to act, because the judicial branch doesn't act until it is confronted with actual "cases and controversies." DADT and DOMA can only be declared unconstitutional by the judiciary, and only when they are presented with an actual legal battle (provided with the standing requirements are met). Advisory opinions are unconstitutional.

2) "There's some kind of thing.."? This sentence doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. 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. This is a matter of well-settled law, and is never up for debate.

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.

4) Don't get pissy about my profession just because you're ignorant and wrong. I don't come down to Cuffs and knock the dick out of your mouth.

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.

@17 I agree completely. DADT and DOMA are draconian, backwards laws that hurt our military and are a stain on this country.

My only point is that the way Dan Savage continues to attack this issue is ignorant and wrong. It's wrong because it's not true. And it is also wrong because he is leading his readers to believe that executive orders have some kind of real power.

If we want to talk about Obama and gay rights, let's do it. But we should at least be honest. How about Obama appointing over 100 openly gay and lesbian people to his administration when the previous number was ZERO? How about the fact that a black presidential candidate in 2007 equated gay rights to civil rights in several southern black churches? How about the fact that Obama is the first President to ever utter the phrase, "LGBT", on live television?

These examples don't take away from the fights against DOMA and DADT, but they should serve as an example of the progress that is made. Also, Obama is a political magician. Every single move he has made (from the primaries up until now) has been criticized as stupid at the time. But in retrospect, it has always been the right political move. He will get this done. It won't be a matter of ,"if", but a matter of, "when." So there are reasons that the gay community should be patient. Because in the end, a few years of delay will amount to GENERATIONS of progress. Every single significant piece of civil rights legislation has taken time and patience.

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.

@18 You are such a tool. The 'executive' does not interpret laws, it enforces them. Seriously, dude, just read Marbury v. Madison. You will learn something. Something you should have learned before you even typed out your ignorant rant. Again, you don't have to agree with me. I'm just right. And you are ignorant and wrong.

I support Legal Asshole. Be patient. Wait until it's time. And blass our master Obama, he HAS thrown us crumbs from the table. We hsould be grateful!

@21 Idiot: Obama *CAN'T* repeal the law, let alone even try to. That is the entire point. You really should pass third grade before trying to talk to the intellectuals.

There are political and legal realities that Dan Savage will never understand. No matter how much you write, how much you argue, he will never get it. He is politically naive in a world full of politically-savvy sharks. Guess what, Dan? The politically-savvy sharks ALWAYS win. And so will Obama on equality.

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.

People want the President to suspend enforcement of DADT. Exactly what does this accomplish in the big picture? By no longer enforcing, DADT loses its bite while BO is president and the urgency for repeal is removed. Gays get to continue to serve in the military and don't have to worry, until the republicans return and decide to enforce it again. You think if Congress doesn't care now, by not enforcing it, you'll get no one to care.

It needs to be repealed. Nothing else is acceptable and deciding to no longer enforce it does not help on the road to repeal. Rather, forcing them to enforce it would be the road I'd like to see taken. Let the gays in the military TELL. Lt. Choi had the right idea. If we lose more quality servicemen and women like him because of this law, it becomes a story of the stupidity of the law.

Obama deciding not to enforce it becomes a lovely gift for FOX to slam him for not following laws, picking and choosing what to enforce based on his liberal (ha!) agenda and socialist blah blah blah.

I would like President Obama to ignore the current cultural and political climate and sign an executive order RIGHT NOW repealing DOMA, regardless of the ill affects his actions will have on the remainder of time in office. All President Obama has to do is a sign a piece of paper, neuter his political influence, piss off a large and powerful constituency and kiss any hope of a second term election goodbye. I don't this this is too much to ask. We need action and we need it now.

"We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell until Congress repeals the law,"

Rep Alcee Hastings -- a profile in courage.

It is a question of political capital -- Obama's thrown enough red meat to the idiot right in the past few months. Look at the fucking ACORN to-do -- two fratty kids dress up for a Pimps n' Hos party and all of a sudden Congress shut off all of ACORN's funding.

The lunatics are running the asylum in DC. Obama's walking around with his asshole puckered. He's got to pick his battles, and health care is still Job No. 1. Let him build some actual momentum. So far he is losing every battle. His to-do list is getting longer, not shorter.

I'm sorry gays cannot put pictures of their life partners on their footlockers.

31 ftw

If 77 Democratic Congressmen want DADT ended why don't they get off their asses and repeal it?
They have a GODAM SUPERMAJORITY!
What have they done with it?

Name ONE FUCKING THING the Democratic SUPERMAJORITY has done?

(oh yeah-
they rebuked Joe Wilson.
and he has raised $2.7 million since.)

There are many many many things about which Dan doesn't know anything.
at.
all.

The military
in all it's nuances
is at the very top of that
long long long list.

When Dan "I coined 'Santorum'! Look at Me!" Savage starts yapping about what the Commander-in-Chief should do with the mightiest military ever seen on the planet someone needs to quietly pull the plug but not say anything and let Dan keep typing furiously away until he gets it out of his system.

See, there is no one in Dan's life whose opinion he respects and who he will listen to who could take him aside and say;
"Dan, we love you guy but when you start going off on this you sound like a goddamn fucking moron please shut the fuck up".

So here we are.

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.

Oh, give it up with that "The military and all its nuances" crap. I grew up on a series pf Air Force base, both here and abrod, and I know exactly what it is: A gigantic welfare program with an inflated sense of self-worth, and a huge PR budget.

They're our servants, and they'll do as they're told. Somebody just needs to tell them.

Have you seen the shit the Prez got for being awarded the Nobel? What the hell do you think would happen if he ended DADT? I think anti-gay violence would increase 100%.

Pretty sure people on all sides wat'ed when he got the Nobel. Nothing peaceful about his foreign policy, and I'm glad people ripped into him for it.