An executive order would repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell”
By Rev. Irene Monroe
This week Lady Gaga joined Maine’s rally to send a message to the state’s two moderate Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, asking them to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT), a critical vote in Congress.
But to no one’s surprise on Tuesday, Senate Republicans quashed it. Democrats needed only 60 votes to overcome a filibuster; the vote, however, was 56 to 43.
The question our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) servicemembers should be asking is whether the vote was a sincere act on the Democrats’ part to repeal DADT.
Or was it merely pressure? Posturing? Or both?
More after the jump.
While I realize that the Obama administration is hoping to avoid the missteps of the Clinton administration when it tried to open military ranks to LGBTQ servicemembers, the Democrats knew they didn’t have the 60 votes needed even if Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, voted as Democrats had hoped.With midterm elections now six weeks away, and with both Republican and Democratic candidates revving up their campaigns, playing to their bases concerns about taxes and the economy, did Democrats really expect or want or even care what the outcome on DADT would be this week?
While this week’s vote is another blow for the LGBTQ community concerning DADT, it makes the Democrats, albeit, in my opinion, disingenuous, look like they care about this issue.
While the LGBTQ community now waits for the Pentagon to complete its study by Dec. 1, reviewing how to maintain the military’s “unit cohesion” while integrating LGBTQ servicemembers, let’s not forget, that as long as DADT is active it gravely impacts recruitment, morale and unit cohesion because it’s okaying the firing of our LGBTQ servicemembers. To date, more than 13,500 LGBTQ servicemembers have been discharged under this discriminatory policy, and the number continues to grow.
“Doesn’t it seem to be that ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is backwards? …We’re penalizing the wrong soldier. …We gay soldiers, who harbor no hatred, no prejudice, no phobia, we’re sent home? I am here today because I would like to propose a new law; a law that sends home the soldier that has the problem. Our new law is called ‘if you don’t like it, go home,’” Lady Gaga stated at the Maine rally.
Had Lady Gaga’s logic prevailed before the Senate vote our U.S. military today would be less likely to lose another willing and patriotic servicemember because of his or her sexual orientation.
But with attitudes like those of Tony Perkins, president of the Washington, D.C.- based Family Research Council (FRC), a conservative Christian organization promoting “traditional family values,” DADT will continue to be a political pawn for anti-gay Christian conservatives who see this issue of LGBTQ in the military as a religious one and not as a civil rights issue.
“If the Senate fast-tracks the process, it would short-circuit the military’s review of any potential fallout from the change. While the majority of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have made it clear that such an assessment is necessary…part of the rush can be blamed on the November elections. The rest can be pinned on an angry homosexual base, whose groups like GetEQUAL have been filling Senate offices with fliers that say, ‘You’re next! We demand “Don’t ask, don’t tell” be repealed now or you will become a target for non-violent direct action,’” Perkins wrote on FRC’s blog.
However, there are many LGBTQ servicemembers who believe these present anti-gay attitudes will change.
For example, Margarethe Cammermeyer, a lesbian and former chief nurse for the Washington State National Guard, and awardee of the Bronze Star for her service in Vietnam is optimistic about the military. She believes that by 2027, the military will look very different, because sexual tension, sexual misconduct, and the treatment of LGBTQ servicemembers will be resolved. Cammermeyer also believes that “‘the Uniform Code of Military Justice” will be revised to reflect social mores and the reality of human sexuality. The result will be a pragmatic document that will preserve individual privacy, and consensual conduct will be considered a private matter.”
I commend Cammermeyer’s optimism, but 2027 is a long way off. The anti-gay attitudes of Republicans must be squelched, and the political posturing of Democrats supposedly acting on behalf of LGBTQ servicemembers, must be called out.
For many in the LGBTQ community, we are anxious about the repeal of DADT coming to fruition, hoping for the President and his administration to effect real and substantive change on our behalf. And given the political climate now, could Obama have done something sooner to repeal DADT?
I think so.
For example, in 2008, as a campaign promise to LGBTQ voters, Senator Obama empathetically stated he would repeal the discriminatory policy; he campaigned on a full repeal of the law. Soon after Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the LGBTQ community waited anxiously to hear that steps were being made to repeal DADT. But on June 8 of that year when the Supreme Court refused to review the Pentagon policy that prohibits LGBTQ servicemembers to serve openly in the military, Obama’s people added salt to the wounds of our LGBTQ servicemembers by stating in court papers that the ruling on DADT was correct because of the military’s legitimate concern of LGBTQ servicemembers endangering “unit cohesion” — a concept totally debunked by a 2002 study.
Studies have been done over and over, showing that LGBTQ servicemembers do NOT harm “unit cohesion.” Enough is enough! And it’s time for action.
And that action is for President Obama to issue an Executive Order on behalf on LGBTQ servicemembers.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order banning racial discrimination in defense industries and the government
President Harry Truman issued Executive Order No. 9981 to provide full integration of African Americans in the armed services. And the executive order provided for “equality of treatment and opportunity in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”
The volleying back and forth on DADT can come to an end simply by Obama using his presidential pen and single-handedly signing an executive order.
That is, of course, if he really wants to.





29 Comments


Not quiteThere was no statute explicitly mandating racial segregation in the military, thus an executive order with no statutory backup was sufficient to end it. DADT, though, was codified into statute by Congress, so an executive order could suspend enforcement but a statute is required to get rid of it permanently. An executive order to suspend enforcement of DADT is exactly what the President should have done on January 21, 2009, but that ship has sailed.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
All we really need is our First Black President to tell our First Black Attorney General to lay the f off and don’t appeal or fight the injunction in the LCR case. We wouldn’t have everything on the gay agenda (open service, DOMA repeal, UAFA, gender-inclusive ENDA), but we would have gotten the lowest hanging fruit.
The Executive Order would be just a Cinderella Crumb. Not appealing or insisting that only gay Republicans can serve openly accomplishes the first part. Look at the broad picture and figure out how to go forward.
We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the legislative and executive branches will never treat us fairly. However, the executive nominates judges and ensuring that more of them are not graduates of Liberty University would be enough. Still, though, the executive is fighting what they claim is their own agenda. That’s simply homophobia-driven insanity.
He can’t do thatHe can’t repeal the policy by executive order, it’s a law, not a military policy.
There are things he could do to temporarily stop the policy from being implemented like zeroing out funds. He can’t just issue an order though.
he can issue an orderthat would suspend the policy through the end of his presidency. No, it’s not repeal. But, it also doesn’t require him to zero out funds. The law that congress passed 17 years ago has a specific provision in it allowing the president to issue an order suspending the policy. Obama doesn’t want to do it because he doesn’t want anyone to be able to hold him responsible for it.
Agreed. No repeal, but he could stop enforcement.The law, and the laws governing the military in general, sometimes have specific authorizations for the President, and in some cases, lower level officers, to set aside the requirements of the law when the needs of the military require it.
Specifically, in this case, a servicemember who would otherwise be discharged under DADT can be retained if their service provides something critical to the mission.
In a situation where the country is at war, where (thanks, Bush), the military’s mission includes an open-ended anti-terrorism mandate, and most branches of the military are so unable to meet their recruiting goals that they are having to reduce the requirements and standards (talk about affecting the ability to do the mission!), it is not hard to make a case that every able servicemember who wishes to serve and hasn’t shown either incompetence or violated some other deal-breaking rule is critical for the military mission.
So experts seem to agree that Obama could, as Commander-in-Chief, declare that keeping LGBT people in the military is sufficiently mission critical that their discharges should be suspended for the duration.
That sword would still be hanging over their heads, and the justification for it would fall apart if we ever achieve a stable peace, but it would also put openly LGBT people in the position of serving and showing that things don’t fall apart. It would also allow discipline and correction of the harassers. (There’s nothing requiring or even allowing mistreatment of people even when they are “unfit” for military duty, and that needs badly to be addressed.)
But only Congress can repeal it, or the Courts could declare the law Unconstitutional. The President has no power to get rid of it. He could do a hell of a lot more to champion repeal, though.
IN factBush I, the elder, did issue an executive order stopping the discharge of gays and lesbians during the first gulf war. The problem was that he lifted his executive order when the war finished and went back to kicking them out.
This fact was used as proof that the ban is ridiculous. They kept the gays in during the first gulf war showing that the gays apparently don’t affect the military during wartime when they have to be in the closest contact with straight members.
Sorry, Tim, with respect, afraid Bush didn’t….
Apparently unaware of federal law 10 USC 12305 [see below], Bush fils did issue Executive Order 13223 after 9/11 that authorized the individual service branches to initiate a stop-loss allowing them “to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, involuntary retirement, and separation” of military personnel. But, in a flurry of poorly expressed disclaimers, they explicity denied it included gays.
What happened in practice, however, was exactly what had in every other war since and including ***WWII: a reduction in discharges, often involving simply more generously “looking the other way,” and, in others, an application of the craven trick as contained in the Army Commander’s Handbook, which says under the criterion of homosexuality: “if discharge is not requested prior to the unit’s receipt of alert notification, discharge isn’t authorized. Member will enter active duty with the unit.” Applying this “you’re in until you get back to the States….or killed,” in 2005, a military spokesperson acknowledged they were sending service members there was reason to believe might be gay into combat in Iraq.
The result was that discharges under Bush fils had fallen by the last year of his presidency to one-third of what they’d been the first year of his presidency.
***Based on research by Allen Berube for Coming Out Under Fire, which celebrates the 20th anniversary of its publication this year, in one instnace during World War II, “the adjutant general ordered the commanding general of the West Coast Air Corps Training Center in California to review the cases of some men ALREADY CONVICTED OF SODOMY “to determine their respective availability for military service” with “the view of conserving all available manpower for service in the Army.” He canceled the men’s dishonorable discharges and made them eligible for reassignment AFTER COMPLETING THEIR PRISON SENTENCES!
In 1945, facing manpower shortages during the final European offensive in Europe, Secty of War, Harry Stimson, ordered a review of all gay discharges and ordered commanders to “salvage” homosexual soldiers for service whenever necessary.
not sure i understandwhy you are using an example of what Bush II did after 9/11 when I am talking about what Bush I did during the first gulf war.
And, just out of curiosity, what does the “fils” term you are using with Bush mean? I’ve never seen that before.
not sure i understandwhy you are using an example of what Bush II did after 9/11 when I am talking about what Bush I did during the first gulf war.
And, just out of curiosity, what does the “fils” term you are using with Bush mean? I’ve never seen that before.
Gee, a guy’s feelings could get hurt…
After having posted the legal facts here dozens of times, I’m astonished at those who are merely speculating.
Yes, dear Rev. Monroe’s verb is wrong: Obama could not “repeal” DADT. But he could issue an Executive Order freezing gay discharges that would stay in effect until formally reversed by himself or a future president. And, note, because a supermajority is requried to override a President’s Executive Order, McShame could scream all he wanted to no avail.
He need not merely assume he has the power. He explicitly, unequivocally has it under a federal law Congress passed in 1983 that had apparently been forgotten by everyone [see Bush EO above] until the Palm Center pointed it out in May of last year.
Its constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It was created to legally extend the active duty service of reserve/National Guard units, but while it does not reference gays specifically, its applicabilty to whomever at a President’s discretion is clear.
The law is 10 United States Code § 12305 – “Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation.” It reads, emphasis mine:
Obama himself said in June of 2009 that gay discharges “weaken national security.”
Nota Bene: Congress did not put in the bill, “EXCEPT HOMOSEXUALS.” As there were nearly 2000 gay discharges in 1983 under the policy ban, the attitudes about gay service were no more kind then, but they were simply displaying common, if cold-hearted, sense as the government had done from WWII forward whenever more were needed to fight [and die] than they could muster among nongays.
[Officially it applies only in times of "national emergency," but Bush declared same after 9/11 and Obama renewed it as is likely to continue as long as we're in Afghanistan which is going to be longer than some want us to believe, In any case, he could let it stand, and by then, seeing that the sky did not fall, no one with any clout could really convince enough people it was necessary to go back to kicking people out.]
Nota Bene: eager to kiss Obama’s ass, virtually all of Gay, Inc., denounced or ignored the Palm Center’s May 2009 press release revealing his legal powers to stop discharges. For an analysis of the result, including the Center’s predictions about the fate of legislation-alone attempts that turned out to be painfully prescient, see Self-Inflicted Wound – How and Why Gays Give the White House a Free Pass on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at the link below.
http://www.palmcenter.org/file…
Obama has the legal authority, historical precedent, popular support, and the operational need:
BUT
DO
NOT
EXPECT
HIM
TO
DO
IT!
Sorry, Tim, I read too quickly….
but THE FACT REMAINS that NEITHER BUSH issued any such Executive Order stopping discharges of gays.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be very happy to see it.
He could simply not appeal DADTHe could avoid the specious, insulting and deceitful sophistry that he is using to claim that only Log Cabin Republican gays are protected currently.
He could suspendd investigation and processing of DADT complaints.
He could have avoided the fiction of us having even the remotest chance of getting DADT repealedd a few days ago when what he manuevered and hiped for actually happened: John McCain took the bait and killed a defence spendign bill that the President didn’t like.
If I could play Devil’s Advocate for just a momentI am seriously curious of what if any potential negative consequences to the Administration could result from the DOJ not at least going through the motions of appealing the verdict. Presumably, the President has a constitutional responsibility to execute the laws enacted by Congress, and I believe a part of that responsibility is to at least maintain competent defense of those laws when challenged in court. If the President were to not make any attempt to appeal the verdict in this highly politicized case, would he be exposing himself to the risk of litigation and perhaps even impeachment? If he were to not at least file the appeal, could a third, more committed party challenge the ruling on the basis of inadequate legal representation? In other words, is going through the motions of fighting the decision the best route to making sure that it eventually stands?
I’m seriously wondering.
Michael is correct per legal reference, a STOP-LOSS on dischages..Is what he can issue. Maj Almy noted that on the Rachel Maddow Show the other night. He could also accept Judge Phillips 'unconstutuional via First and Fifth Amendment rulings' and begin implementing her injunction! Worldwide! Then they could lay all the blame on this 'acitivst judge.' But also, I do want everyone to realize… that regardless of the next years machinations… there are still an accepted 60,000+ LGBT tropps serving in our military…and Senator McCain, and the other 42, (Especially Snowe, Collins, Lincoln and all 'traitors' to VP Biden's statement) and to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to our dear Commander-in-Chief…These troops are actually SHOWERING and SLEEPIN IN BEDS daily!Oh the HORROR of teh gay!
This isn’t a LGBTQ issueI am not aware of anyone in the Democratic Party or in an LGBTQ activist group who is seriously pushing to end the ban on transgender people in the military.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed. But discharges based on a person’s gender identity will continue even if Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is repealed.
It’s irresponsible to assume that just because something will help gays, lesbians and bisexuals, that somehow transgender people are magically included as well. I support repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but let’s be clear about who it would help and who is left behind. This is a LGB issue, not a LGBT issue.
here you gofrom the Palm Center
http://www.palmcenter.org/file…
Bush I issued a stop loss order without excluding gays from it. This was before DADT was enacted. So, he couldn’t issue an order specific to gays as is legislated as part of DADT.
When Bush II issued a stop loss order after 9/11 he excluded gays from the order and told the military to continue discharging them.
And, I’m still interested in what “fils” means. That wasn’y me being snarky. I’m genuinely interested in knowing.
TrueAnd there is a distinct difference in rationale (both unjustified) between justifying discharges under DADT and discharges of transgender soldiers. DADT is based on the assumption that strait troops can’t handle being around gay people, but transgender people are discharged because they are considered mentally unfit to serve. One thing that makes DADT such low hanging fruit is that it is blatantly and specifically discriminatory against a harmless minority, and even recognizes that LGB people are a harmless minority in its wording. Discriminatory law justified only by the discrimination of others is completely unjust to any impartial observer.
For transgender service members, they justify the discrimination based on a quality of the transgender person themselves. That, in all likelihood, is based on the superficial rationalization of the DSM-IV describing us as “disordered”, but ultimately, it’s really just the same old bigotry behind it. However, with that damn DSM-IV out there for them to hang their hats on, fighting it is an enormously difficult task, and we don’t have the numbers or the will to take it on. Even if we can break through the barrier of the “mentally unfit to serve stigma”, we will then come up against the next wall that the LGB soldiers are trying to surmount now: unit cohesiveness. The transgender community has two mountains to cross in pursuit of our right to serve, and no serious expeditionary force organized to climb them.
However, this is still something for the trans community to celebrate. First, in terms of the right to serve, once we ever surmount that first mountain of “disordered”, the next mountain of “unit cohesiveness” will probably be reduced to a hill once DADT is repealed. It will greatly reduce the obstacles confronting us. Secondly, in so many aspects of discrimination and civil rights, gay, lesbian, and trans issues are all intertwined. The fall of DADT is a big fat domino that will contribute to the passing of marriage equality and ENDA, both very much trans issues. If we can’t get the explicitly discriminatory law of DADT repealed (a sin of commission), it becomes doubtful if the time is ripe to reform one man/one woman marriage laws (a sin of omission), or pass ENDA to end workplace discrimination (a sin of permission). DADT is an important milestone on the path to transgender rights as well, even if it is on a path that intersects with our path further down the road.
“fils”is French for son. In this case, Bush the son, as opposed to Bush pere (the father).
Rev. Monroe still doesn’t get itWith all due respect, Rev. Monroe, you still don’t fucking get it. What in the hell is wrong with “our” side? Obama is a lying bigot. End of debate. How many fucking times do we have to allow ourselves to be stabbed in the back before we STOP making excuses for people who hate us? Rev. Monroe, what will it take for you to pull off the blinders and see that just because that bigot has a “D” at the end of his name doesn’t mean he is on our side? Why? Please help me understand the fog in your brain? Why do people who are otherwise intelligent act and speak like fucking idiots when it comes to the Democrats?
Does Obama have to take a knife and cut off the head of a gay person on live TV before you fucking lemmings FINALLY see that the Democrats are NOT pro-gay? Why oh why are you so committed to the Democratic Party that you refuse to see the evidence in front of your faces?
Rev. Monroe, you are absolutely correct in that Obama could end DADT right now with an executive order. In fact, he could have done this at any point and on any day of his presidency thus far. He hasn’t. He hasn’t and he will never do so so long as people like you give him cover and make excuses for him. Obama has not issued an executive order because he does not support equal rights for lgbt people and, like every Democrat, he gives us lip service because he knows that all it takes to shut us fags and dykes up. It’s a brilliant strategy that has worked for 30 years. Don’t believe me? Show me the law that’s been signed adding lgbt people to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The LGBT movement will never move forward so long as half of us keep arguing that our enemies are our friends and that we ourselevs are powerless. Rev. Monroe = FAIL. Faith in God is one thing. Faith in politicians is something else entirely. I don’t base my politics on faith. I base my politics on reality. Won’t you join me?
Actually, I along with a few others are working towards thatBut with DADT standing there, we really can’t get around that fact. While DADT is modern, the older regulations that barred Gay and Lesiban service members were based in the predicessors of the current DSM and were a ‘mental defect’ that barred service.
Currently Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is listed in the DSM IV as a DISORDER. The sad fact is, the word ‘disorder’ is used here wrongly as a discriptive and the lay people who all too often ‘read in to it’ do so wrongly. Those ‘lay people’ are all too often Republican Congress members. There are laws that do negatively impact actual medical treatment given to Transgender Service Members even while the service Member has a contract that states that they do have ‘FULL MEDICAL COVERAGE’. Currently, only Mecial Regualtions bar Transgender Service Members from continuing service. The only improvement that I’ve seen is they no long express discharge a Transgender Service Member. They do allow Transgender Service Members to finish their enlistment if its less than 12 months and now DO give therapy and in some cases a full set of carry, HRT and even surgery letters. They are also encourage the departing Service Member to contact the VA prior to discharge to set up and continue treatment. The best places right now to go after getting out is the west coast and the north east. There the VA does loads more for you. The south east from Florida to Texas to Virgina to Arkansas …well, below ‘fair’ is a good call.
But Transgender Service Members will continue to be classified as ‘Mentally Unfit for Service’ until the DSM IV is revised. (thank god the DSM V removes Gender Identity Disorder and brings in Gender Incongruance or ‘GI’)
What is even more rare are Intersexed Service Members. Once discovered, they are given a RE4 re-enlistment code that bars re-enlistment. They maybe discharged in a manner similar to someone Transgendered. The big difference is someone Intersexed is considered to be ‘Unfit Due to Physical Defect’ even if that ‘Defect’ is not impacting on any part of the person’s service. Sadly, because of the laws wording that bars medical treatment of Transgender Service Members, Intersex Service Members are at times forced out because they do require medical intervention.
I think I’m the only person that’s even addressed that or brought it to the attention of my congress members. (If they can keep a guy on who’s missing a lung and has 34 operations over 7 years and can’t do his job any more, why can’t they keep IS and TG types?)
But first, we do have to get rid of DADT.
Sorry, no sale…
As that report notes, it was just like the Pentagon’s arbitrary pracitice under his son…fight now/get discharged later….and not at all the unlimited stop-loss that people are fantasizing Our Lord & Savior Obama Christ will do.
The incontrovertible REALITY is in the numbers.
The Gulf War lasted from August 2, 1990, to February 28, 1991.
In 1989, there were ***996 discharges.
In 1990, there were 941 discharges.
In 1991, there were 949 discharges.
In other words, there was NO statistically significant difference in the way the military ultimately dealt with gays during this period.
There was a noticeable decrease in the next three years, before they began to rise again in 1995, the first full year after the ban became “DADT.” Why is anyone’s guess.
1992 – 730 discharges…219 less than the year before.
1993 – 682
1994 – 617
1995 – 757
Also, I’m not certain what kind of functional distinction you’re making with, “So, he couldn’t issue an order specific to gays as is legislated as part of DADT.”
Discharges are discharges are discharges. One was not any more or less discharged under the ban as DoD policy than as federal law. DADT is just old win in a new bottle with a catchy name.
What we apparently agree on is that there are various forms of precedent upon which Obama could act. The problem is not the way, it is the will.
_______
***Whenever anyone reads discharge numbers, unless otherwise noted, assume them to be lower than the actual number. In the last year, Servicemembers United discovered that the usual source for such statistics, the Defense Manpower Data Center, had not been counting reserve/national guard discharges.
well, if you re-read my original post, that’s exactly what I said. I pointed the whole thing out to show that it is perfectly legal for the president to issue such an order in the first place. Because, many people try to claim that the president CAN’T legally issue the order. But, he can. In fact, even more so now because the authority to do so was written into the original DADT legislation. (That’s the reason I pointed out the distinction. Because Bush I could not have issued the stop loss order that was legislated as part of DADT since DADT didn’t exist yet.)
So, yes, my original post stands as accurate. I NEVER said that he didn’t lift the order at the end of the war. In fact, I noted that he did.
Now, do I believe that Obama will ever issue an executive order that he is legally able to issue….. No, I don’t believe he ever will. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that he has the legal authority to do it.
And, why won’t you tell me what “fils” means?
fils means (lit) “son of” or “the younger”“Jr.” in common parlance.
ApplauseAnd thanks.
Because of my own peculiar IS condition, I’ve effectively got a boot in both camps. TS and IS, I’ll answer to either.
Technically, a diagnosis of IS precludes one of Transsexuality (under the WHO’s ICD-10 manual) or Gender Identity Disorder (under the DSM-IV-TR).
In practice, if your apparent sex changes, due to either natural causes or hormonal/surgical intervention, the cause is immaterial. You get the same used food in either case.
I know you mean well, Tim, but you’re still selectively reading Nathaniel Frank’s unfortunate phrasing and what Bush’s intent was….
10 USC 12305 was in effect when Bush pere was President, so either men could have used it regardless of the enactment of DADT in between their terms in office.
Re your addendum: “…the authority to do so was written into the original DADT legislation,” there is nothing in 10 USC 654 – Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces aka DADT referencing Presidential authority in any way. Perhaps you are thinking of this section:
As for “fils,” Someone answered that questions several hours ago, below.
fils/pèreIt’s like saying junior to say “fils” after someone’s name.
They talk of Dumas fils (the son of Alexandre Dumas) and Dumas père (father) to distinguish which one they mean. Pops wrote The Three Musketeers and many others, the son wrote Camille.
I myself wouldn’t use French to describe either Bush, well, maybe éspèce de con.
He won’t do itHe won’t do anything he can do because he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t care, he’s busy, the world is too complicated, DOJ says no, his advisers say no, the Pentagon says no, Michelle says no, he doesn’t understand what it feels like to be second class now that he’s King of the Hill, because because, because.
Name your excuse. Doesn’t matter. He won’t do it. He fooled me once. He won’t fool me again.
again, i think you are failing to actually read my original post. Or, you are reading things into my original post that are not there. Nowhere in that post did I ever mention anything about Bush I’s “intent”.
Bush I issued a stop loss order for all members of the military. He didn’t ‘exclude” gays from that order.
Bush II issued a stop loss order that specifically “excluded” gays. So, I guess we know what his intent was in regards to gays.
And once more, my original post was made to show that it is perfectly legal for the president to issue such orders. Every time this issue comes up there are commenters who make the claim that the president doesn’t have the authority to issue such an order. And, the Bush I example that didn’t exclude gays, no matter what his intent, shows that the president does have that authority. My post never said, and didn’t intend to imply, that Bush I issued his order out of the goodness of his heart as a benefit for gay & lesbian members of the military.
As to my addendum. I was under the impression that the DADT legislation included language that either re-iterated or created the authority for the president to issue a stop loss order to suspend the enforcement of DADT. The only reason I brought it up was that if there were language in there specific to a DADT stop loss, then Bush I certainly couldn’t have done exactly what future presidents would have been authorized to do by that legislation because it didn’t exist yet. But it’s really not consequential to the rest of the point.
again, i think you are failing to actually read my original post. Or, you are reading things into my original post that are not there. Nowhere in that post did I ever mention anything about Bush I’s “intent”.
Bush I issued a stop loss order for all members of the military. He didn’t ‘exclude” gays from that order.
Bush II issued a stop loss order that specifically “excluded” gays. So, I guess we know what his intent was in regards to gays.
And once more, my original post was made to show that it is perfectly legal for the president to issue such orders. Every time this issue comes up there are commenters who make the claim that the president doesn’t have the authority to issue such an order. And, the Bush I example that didn’t exclude gays, no matter what his intent, shows that the president does have that authority. My post never said, and didn’t intend to imply, that Bush I issued his order out of the goodness of his heart as a benefit for gay & lesbian members of the military.
As to my addendum. I was under the impression that the DADT legislation included language that either re-iterated or created the authority for the president to issue a stop loss order to suspend the enforcement of DADT. The only reason I brought it up was that if there were language in there specific to a DADT stop loss, then Bush I certainly couldn’t have done exactly what future presidents would have been authorized to do by that legislation because it didn’t exist yet. But it’s really not consequential to the rest of the point.