The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4427 |
Page 1 of 4 |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
asks for Stay: CNN Politics Quote: BREAKING on "don't ask, don't tell" By: (CNN) - The federal government requested an immediate stay, pending appeal, of a federal court injunction of the military’s policy barring openly gays from serving. Meanwhile Obama's telling MTV viewers that he opposes DADT... |
Author: | Uncle Fester [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:28 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Change you can believe, change in the position in one day! |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Heheh, within the hour. |
Author: | Müs [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Quote: Although President Barack Obama has stated his view that the current law is discriminatory, the administration also has said Congress, not the courts, should change the law allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the armed forces. The Justice Department says that it defends all laws of Congress in court. I would like to have my cake and consume it as well. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I agree with his "shoulds" but, I wouldn't appeal. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Obama is actually correct to object to this. Aside from the fact that courts below the USSC other than military courts should not be ruling on unternal military matters, period, and the fact that what is and isn't militarily effective is not a question for the courts in the first place since judges are eminently unqualified to rule on it, we have the spectacle of a district court issuing a ruling for the entire nation rather than just its jurisdiction. It's perfectly fine and dandy for the regular courts to rule on matters that directly affect citizens unconnected to the military, such as detainee issues or this jackass in Yemen that they want to blow up, but courts have no buisness whatsoever determining any matter pertaining to militry effectiveness unless that court happens to be the Supreme Court and the question is one of Congress, the President, or the military enforcing some policy at the expense of the responsibility to maintain the ability of the nation to defend itself. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Diamondeye wrote: ...we have the spectacle of a district court issuing a ruling for the entire nation rather than just its jurisdiction. While I don't disagree that the Supreme Court should hear it, a Federal District Court's "jurisdiction" includes constitutionality of laws. When they make a ruling, it does not only affect the area in which they are physically located, they are Federal Courts, their rulings affect the nation. Both the Constitutional issue and the Diversity issue make this fall under Federal Court jurisdiction.. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Vindicarre wrote: Diamondeye wrote: ...we have the spectacle of a district court issuing a ruling for the entire nation rather than just its jurisdiction. While I don't disagree that the Supreme Court should hear it, a Federal District Court's "jurisdiction" includes constitutionality of laws. When they make a ruling, it does not only affect the area in which they are physically located, they are Federal Courts, their rulings affect the nation. Both the Constitutional issue and the Diversity issue make this fall under Federal Court jurisdiction.. Then what happens when two district or appelate court issue contradictory rulings? It has to go to the USSC anyhow, but in the meantime, what do you do? |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The second one overturned or modified the precedent set by the first, and is (the? a? I don't know the details here) new precedent until the SC rules. It's possible for multiple precedents to argue both sides, that's why there are lawyers and judges, to sort through precedent and law and determine what most strongly applies in a given case. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:07 am ] |
Post subject: | |
What you do is order an injunction until the SC rules to stop the issue that may be unconstitutional or illegal based on the conflicted ruling. |
Author: | Khross [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 5:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
... I wasn't aware there was some sort of special dispensation for the military in the Constitution. |
Author: | Talya [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:08 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Diamondeye wrote: Aside from the fact that courts below the USSC other than military courts should not be ruling on unternal military matters, period, and the fact that what is and isn't militarily effective is not a question for the courts in the first place since judges are eminently unqualified to rule on it, we have the spectacle of a district court issuing a ruling for the entire nation rather than just its jurisdiction. Aside from Khross's very valid point making yours irrelevant, wouldn't this also prevent the USSC from hearing an issue like this? Court cases don't often start at the supreme court level, but get there because of controversial lower court cases, isn't that correct?? |
Author: | Corolinth [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:11 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Yes, it would. You forget, however, that DE's expressed opinions on this and related topics indicate a belief that the military and law enforcement are not beholden to the people, but rather are above them and therefore beyond reproach. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The Military and military law enforcement aren't beholden to the people. Its a whole different set of rules - the Uniform Code of Military Justice which derives it's authority from the constitution (Article I, Section 8). Too bad that you want to misrepresent his position by claiming he holds it above and beyond reproach. It seems like a cheap shot. |
Author: | Khross [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Article 1, Section 8 wrote: Section 8. Really now ...
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. |
Author: | Micheal [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Quote: reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers In that case, I call for the closure of West Point, Annapolis, and all other facilities that have as part of their graduation ceremonies, the appointment of officers. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 2:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Khross wrote: Really now ... Yes, really really. http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/jsc_business.html Quote: SOURCES OF LAW:
1. Article 1, Section 8, Constitution of the United States - 1787 (See Appendix 1, MCM): The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulations of the land and naval Forces |
Author: | Talya [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
That doesn't provide for those rules to violate any other parts of the constitution. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:14 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Talya wrote: That doesn't provide for those rules to violate any other parts of the constitution. Wow, you became an expert in military law in .. what, 11 minutes? You're good! Where were you when people were being ordered to surrender their lives for their country? "Take that hill"! "uh.. no, Taly says I don't have to". "Oh, silly me... I don't know what I was thinking". |
Author: | Talya [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Taskiss wrote: Talya wrote: That doesn't provide for those rules to violate any other parts of the constitution. Wow, you became an expert in military law in .. what, 11 minutes? You're good! Where were you when people were being ordered to surrender their lives for their country? "Take that hill"! "uh.. no, Taly says I don't have to". "Oh, silly me... I don't know what I was thinking". Military people are generally volunteers. (And the USSC has ruled --incorrectly, I think, but that's not the point-- that the draft is constitutional as well.) No constitutional rules are being broken by the above example. Firefighters are also not being unconstitutionally ordered about when they are told to enter a burning building. Nor is a police officer ordered to take down a dangerous gun-toting criminal having his rights violated. Military law is not somehow exempt and separate from the highest law of your nation. |
Author: | DFK! [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Military law is not somehow exempt and separate from the highest law of your nation. Stop undermining authoritarian viewpoints. |
Author: | Khross [ Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Taskiss wrote: Khross wrote: Really now ... Yes, really really. http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/jsc_business.html Quote: SOURCES OF LAW: 1. Article 1, Section 8, Constitution of the United States - 1787 (See Appendix 1, MCM): The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulations of the land and naval Forces So where the hell is this exemption? |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:19 am ] |
Post subject: | |
It isn't in there, its simply tradition. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:20 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Khross wrote: Problem is I gave you the full text of Article 1 Section 8 ... So where the hell is this exemption? Problem is yours, I guess. There is clearly a constitutional exception being made in Article 1 Section 8 that allows for a separate set of rules and regulations for the military. If the intent was to disallow such an exception then simply removing the provision would level the playing field. |
Author: | Khross [ Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Obama Administration Appeals DADT Ruling... |
Taskiss: Nope, the problem is yours. The Judge in question isn't regulating the military. He's regulating Congress and the President. |
Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |