Anyone Furious Over Obama’s Selective Ignoring of Laws That Aren’t DADT?

Glenn Beck can get all the loyal wingnuts to townhall meetings with their representatives with one show. You ever go?

The Republicans know how to show up. Democrats think they just vote on campaign promises and everything is a done dealio!

@SM:

Trolling queerty isn’t a job, SM. Get off the internetz and get a fuckin’ job, loser.

And yes, the unprecedented expansion of executive privilege under Bush has been transferred to obama, and he’s not doing a goddamn thing to undermine it and restore integrity to the office. At least he could use it to do something good for civil rights. I guess he’s too busy watering down healthcare reform and cowtowing to big pharma.

@TANK:

FUCK YOU!

[Ed: Comments like these get you removed from Queerty.]

Funny how there is a very large divide between Obama the candidate and Obama the President. Is this really the man we voted for? The name says Obama but the actions say McCain/Palin!

@SM: STOP USING FOWL LANGUAGE!

Using a power is evil and wrong until you have the ability to use the power to your own benefit.

@InExile:

Your Congress Kritters are a bunch of corporate flunkies who listen to their home districts and are bought by corporations. It takes acts of Congress Kritters to pass legislation and the only people in this country who fight and have a backbone are Republicans. Just look at the town halls for health care. They are wingnuts I don’t agree with but at least they show up and fight for what they believe in all the time.

Democrats just watch MSNBC and complain.

@Luke:

Did you just the read fountainhead?

This is one of the more blatant examples of the purposeful distorton of facs by Queerty. To assert that Obama has in any way has done anything even slightly equivalent to the extreme and outrageous abuses of Bush is out right liable.
I can point to no better example of how Queerty has become a Right Wing front. Anyone who buys this outrageous claim has had his head up the proverbial ass for the past 8 years.
As far as anything having to do with the World Bank and the IMF, anyone with any political savy knows that they have been Neocon fronts colaborating in the privatization of Governments worldwide for cobntrol by U.S, Industry . The president has no duty what so ever to do what they want. Their place sofar has been to aid in criushing Democracy all over the world. Bush consistently preformed Unconstitutional actions:you have not pointedout one such example with Obama, the 18 examples of flying in the face of legislative authority is left with no examples at all.

Do you think that we are that stupid?

Well, actually, with respect, the Palm Center is NOT suggesting that Obama “ignore” the law of DADT.

Rather, they are saying that one law, 10 United States Code 12305, Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement,
and Separation, gives him the power to override another: DADT.

“Contrary to what some have stated,” said Belkin, “using executive power to suspend the gay ban is not questionable or even controversial among major legal scholars. It is a power explicitly granted to the President by Congress under the ‘stop-loss’ statute.” By contrast, Belkin said, signing statements are a controversial use of executive authority that many, such as the American Bar Association, have called unconstitutional for usurping Congressional authority.

12305 reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title,
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.

Therein, lies Obama’s willful and indefensible hypocrisy.

[img]http://www.progressivepuppy.com/.a/6a00e552e19fa388330115709a3bdf970b-800wi[/img]

@M Shane: The best part is, I don’t think that the author of this site (who writes this anyway? Do thee editors even exist? I tried Googling that ‘Arthur’ guy and nothing shows up… maybe David Haslib just writes them all)

Anyway- I think the person who writes this stuff is too dumb to realize that they are basically right-wing. I think they aim for ‘controversial’ and just land on ‘irrationally fascist’ by default.

It’s a creepy site, though, full of stupid assertions with no backing and it’s mostly just koind of boring. I used to be outraged when I read this crap. Now, I just don’t care.

@M SHAME:

“To assert that Obama has in any way has done anything even slightly equivalent to the extreme and outrageous abuses of Bush is out right liable.”

Bush used signing authorities.
Obama is using signing authorities.

Bush discharged servicemembers simply for being gay.
Obama is discharging servicemembers simply for being gay.

Bush defended DADT in court.
Obama has defended DADT in court.

Your claiming they are in no way similar is as absurd as claiming they are identical…which Queerty has not.

@M Shane: The point is candidate Obama ran against abuse of power such as signing statements and is using them anyway. I have been quite surprised he has continued Bush’s use of signing statements, I thought he would do away with the practice based on what he said during the campaign.

@SM:

Dear Editor,

Are you knocking boots with Tank or something?

Tank repeatedly replies with insults to others comments and when someone replied back with “f*ck you” you threaten to remove him?

Sorry, but Tank is the bully on this site and others.

Tank has always been a gentleman with me.

@Quack:

“It’s a creepy site, though, full of stupid assertions with no backing and it’s mostly just koind of boring. I used to be outraged when I read this crap. Now, I just don’t care.”???

Apparently, your Obama Borg programming forces you to care enough to still come here to attack. And, if you read anything other than what you call “this crap” you would discover that Queerty has plenty of backing. From the Ph.Ds in history or law and attorneys of the prestigious Palm Center at UCSB, which they linked to above, to those quoted in Saturday’s “New York Times” article:

Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.

President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.

Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letterto Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of Congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” they wrote. “We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

They were reacting to a statement Mr. Obama issued after signing a bill that expanded assistance to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Mr. Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations.

The administration protested that it planned to carry out the provisions anyway and that its statement merely expressed a general principle. But Congress was not mollified. On July 9, in a bipartisan rebuke, the House of Representatives voted 429 to 2 to ban officials from using federal money to disobey the restrictions.

In March, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent Mr. Obama a letter criticizing a signing statement that challenged a statute protecting government whistle-blowers who tell lawmakers privileged or “otherwise confidential” information. He accused Mr. Obama of chilling potential whistle-blowers, undermining the intent of Congress in a way that violated his campaign promises. The White House said it intended only to reaffirm similar reservations made by previous presidents.

Other laws Mr. Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission, and a restriction on putting troops under United Nations command.

After Mr. Bush transformed signing statements from an obscure tool into a commonplace term, Mr. Obama’s willingness to use them has disappointed some who had hoped he would roll back the practice, not entrench it.

“We didn’t think it was an appropriate practice when President Bush was doing it, and our policy is such that we don’t think it is an appropriate practice when President Obama is doing it,” said H. Thomas Wells, who just stepped down as president of the American Bar Association.

In 2006, the association called the practice unconstitutional and said presidents should veto legislation if it had flaws, giving Congress a chance to override the pronouncements.

@SM: Editor: SM is a straight male from Orange County (conservative), California. He’s been on this site berating gays for months and months now. I fail to see any reason for allowing him to use foul language and suggest that a gay man see a shrink. I have complained about him in the past, and I would appreciate it if you would do something about it. Thank you.

Ahhh the downward sprial conitunes. I remember everyone hating on me because I never supported Obama. No one ever thought that maybe he didn’t have enough experience and more ego than he shoud.

@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: First off, congratulations on figuring out how to copy and paste. Seccondly, this article’s whole point is “Obama should use Bush-style tactics to overturn DADT.” So, either you can bitch about Obama being Bush 2.0 (it’s fun to listen to, so I hope you do!) OR you argue that he should use his unchecked power to help the gays. You can’t argue both, because that makes you an idiot. Not saying YOU are an idiot. I’m saying Queerty’s invisible writer(s) is/are.

@Quack:

You missed this option:

I can bitch about Obama being too often Bush-like [don't get me started on how "Bush's War" has become "Obama's War" in too many ways] AND

I can argue that he should use his CHECKED power to help the gays…which is exactly what applying the power CONGRESS gave the Presidency with 10 USC 12305 would be.

No. 10 · Quack ; You may be right. It s tiresome and sometimes the irresponsability just enrages me. I can’t believe that David H. is there because he once actually wrote me personally for validation of some statistics that I had quoted. I can’t imagine anymore a gay site landing in such right wing positions by default and then lettin some of these crazy religious quacks stay on bothering people. Also they take every oportunity to condemn Obama–notice NO attacks on the GOP or on CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

Given the fact that they don’t identify, I’m just suspecting that it’s some religious or right wing bigot who’s stiring things up.Most Sites have editors or authors -Like Signorile.

No. 12 · InExile; given the absolutely unprecidented and horrifying ways that , in multiple ways , Bush just blatantly went against the constitution: e.g. Breaking treaties- abusing the separation of powersi.e.programatically throwing out most Justice dept Officials who weren’t Neocons. Suspending habias corpus (of every 33 people detained for years 28 had no justification.). He declared the Iraq war himself. That’s just the surface. The Patriot Act even specifies that he can declare martial law on the people of the U.S if they get roudy.
Cheney had plans for deploying the Military throughout the U.S. , they just discovered, breaking 3 provisions of the Constitution

The things that Obama has done are infinitesimally minor compared to Bush.
Most importantly you will notice that Queerty says “well if Obama did all of these horrible things why can’t he do more of the same gays. ” What sense does that make?

Yes, I am bothered by the selectivi application of laws. I am more bothered by the selective way in which people decide to view the laws. What I mean is so long as it is “our team” amongst Obamaphilles- its okay. But if this were say Bush (whom I hate) they would be denouncing his actions. But here, because it is President Obama (whom I like) they give him the benefit of the doubt that as citizens they should not give anyone in President Obama’s position of power.

And notice what some of the posters here do- this is how democracies end. It’s ‘small’ what obama has done because (and they will never say this) he’s onw “our team” regarding partisan breakdown.

43 breeders in the Oval Office=43 too many!

@M Shane:

Correction: M SHAME.

You wouldn’t know “sense” if it knocked over your pitcher of Kool Aid.

The point of the thread is Obama’s hypocrisy. Now, he, and others with more credentials that a mere compulsive, hairy-palmed bloggerbater like you, claim that he’s not being hypocritical; that he’s merely refined his campaign trail definitions and is only using signing authorities where constitutional inconsistencies are clear.

So, it’s probably just a matter of time before his pet parrot Gibbs declares that because, thus far, most courts have ruled that while the ban on gays in the military raises constitutional questions, military “necessity” trumps them.

But, even if one were to agree with those points up to a point, again…and again and again…that does not answer the overarching point of the Palm Center and others:

“Contrary to what some have stated,” said Belkin, “using executive power to suspend the gay ban is not questionable or even controversial among major legal scholars. It is a power explicitly granted to the President by Congress under the ‘stop-loss’ statute.”

That the President, a former professor of constitutional law, not only will not address this but also pretends the 1983 stop-loss statute doesn’t exist is not not just inconsistent, is not just hypocritical, it is insulting…to ALL Americans…gay and nongay…when he, himself, has declared that continuing to discharge otherwise eligible gays with mission-critical skills “weakens national security.”

Snow doesn’t fall up, Charlie Brown, no matter how many ways you try to insist it does, nor how much you demonize those who deny it.

Matlovich: have you responded to any of my eplications of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and shed light on the situation of teh U.S being a Military controlled state. That the military has become large and overbearing enough to pull a coup at any time? Talk about that first.

@M Shane:

1. My name isn’t Matlovich.

2. I don’t know what an “eplication” is.

3. I don’t treat paranoia.

@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: Gosh, I didn’t see that option in the article. In fact, it seemed to me that this article argued that Obama ought to subvert the rule of law to enact gay rights. I’m sure THAT would go over well.

Point is: Queerty argues right wing positions ALL THE TIME. And people like you support it because you care more about your knuckleheaded concept of what “gay rights” entails, than about democracy. You blame anyone who diasagrees with you that they are drinking the Kool-Aid, but it is YOU who are treating Obama as if he’s some gay messiah who will solve all your problems.

Why not spend some time building some political capital for the gay rights movement? Why not learn how the fucking government actually functions for a second before shouting like a moronic baby about things you’re clueless about? This site is so adamantly anti-intelligent, so spurious in its claims and so negative– not about Obama, but ABOUT GAY PEOPLE TRYING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, while offering up no solutions of its own, that it is, in my opinion, a homophobic site.

All it offers is a way to ghettoize and demoralize gay people. If that’s not anti-gay, nothing is.

Saddened, but not surprised one bit by this POTUS…and I admit I voted for him.

In Exhile, how can you say, he is McCain/Palin. They lost, and Obama won. He reminds us of it everyday.

@Quack: I feel you

@Name (required): I am no fan of McCain/Palin and would never vote for them but one thing is sure, we have the wrong president.

@InExile:

Tank has always been a gentleman with me.

As he has with me as well.

@schlukitz: I have never had any problem with tank, he tells it like it is and I appreciate that.

Matlovich: If you don’t know what the” Wolfowitz Doctrine ” or Defense Planning Guidance Doctrine of 1992 is then you are in no place to be making any pronouncements about the military, and it’s influence since that is the groundwork for everything that has happened since then. esp. why the Military has been enlarged astronomically and dangerously to the point where it is literally out of control .

I’m suggesting that you may well not be seeing the whole picture about who is making decisions regarding DADT.

There is noithing paranoid about this unless you are a neoconservative yourself.

While I believe that we need to be holding Obama’s feet to the fire (just as anyone interested in REAL healthcare reform) pretending that the election of McCain would have been anything but a disastrous setback for the gay community needs a serious reality check.
As for Hillary, whose husband buckled and gave us two of the laws we now seek to overturn, she could never have been elected with Obama’s numbers which translates into no mandate. While I believe it is politically easier for a woman to address gay rights issues, I have no reason to believe that we would have been a higher priority under a Clinton administration.
I still believe that our priorities are screwed up. ENDA is the most important piece of legislation we could get passed as it would immediately create people ready to mobilize and demonstrate even in the reddest of red states; it would also maker gay equality a national law whereas right now only the act of sex is protected and that by only a Supreme Court ruling.
But who am I to question the priorities of celebrity lesbians from California?

MLMatlovich It’s funny that you would selectively reproduce only the negative side of the article:
it goes on tto say, where you stopped :
The article says that signing statements was an old convention used when some laws were Unconstitutional in a detail. But that Bush had used it overwhelmingly

“But other legal experts argued that signing statements were lawful and appropriate because it was impractical to veto important bills over small problems. Among them, Walter Dellinger, who helped develop the legal framework for signing statements as a Clinton administration official, said Mr. Obama was using the mechanism appropriately, and the problem with Mr. Bush’s statements was that he cited dubious legal theories.”

It states that Bush overlooked matters like breaking the Geneva Convention and the restrictions on torture;

Big diff between torturing people and overlooking necessarily parts of bills that made the whole bill useless.

If Obama was to completely overlook a law: DADT, that would be a much different thing and would be looked on as being as serious as Bush’s decisions besides it would be presuming that a law was going to be changed before the act.

@InExile:

I couldn’t agree with you more. But, you know how it is with some people.

They want everything in a sugar-coated pill and the last thing they want to hear, is how it really is.

Sad, really, that so many people have such an aversion to honesty and integrity. They rather have someone lie to them lest it stir up any of their dormant grey cells.

@SM:

Oh Queerty! Do the same to me! Cause TANK never does that kind of stuff? Like insult you, belittle you and tell you to F off?

O-kay.

@M S H A M E:

You remind me of Cartman in the South Park movie when he had to wear an electronic collar to keep him from orgasms of swearing. If you actually read ENTIRE posts instead of immediately having the typical Obambotic version of a Tourette’s Syndrome seizure the second you come upon a single syllable that disagrees with you, then flailing away incoherently at your keyboard, you’d less frequently make a fool of yourself. I already acknowledged that some supported Obama’s use of signing authorities in Post #23.

At the same time, a different opinion is not necessarily, by definition, superior…and, again, 429 members of Congress out of 435 disagree with that handful who support El Presidente’s selective interpretation of the law.

As for neo-fascists like Wolfowitz, I certainly agree that we are still suffering, and many in the world are dying, simply because of the leftovers of his imperialistic “happiness is a warm gun” raison d’etre, but the only correlation between expanding military powers and DADT is that Obama has CHOSEN to LET those tails wag the dog. In a parallel article on the Palm Center site that Queerty linked to…but you clearly did not read …or “for comprehension”…DADT expert Nathaniel Frank puts it more gently:

Finally, it includes President Obama, who appears to have absorbed an unfortunate — and incorrect — lesson from the Democrats’ alienation from the military since Vietnam: that to earn the trust of the brass, the president must plead with the uniforms for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, Dems must win over the military; no, that is not done by having the president ask permission to act like Commander-in-Chief; it’s done by showing the world that the president knows how to lead. Sometimes moral and political leadership really are one and the same. Ending the needless firing of gay troops is one of those times.

And, for the 89-millionth time…your “If Obama was to completely overlook a law: DADT…” is but another variation of your snow falls up theory…and PROVES once again that you are either not reading or simply don’t comprehend what any child could.

What part of “10 USC 12305 trumps DADT” is it impossible for you to understand?

[img]http://www.freevideogamestuff.com/wp-content/uploads/Cartman_Pissed_Off.jpg[/img]

His trip to the real heartland , Yosemite etc., will positively affect his poll numbers by about 5 points. I don’t think he’ll be travelling to Europe anytime soon or going to Broadway. He is a master at controlling his image, unlike Bush, and although they essentially have the same policies, ignorant citizens will no doubt fall for his optiKal illusions. Will it be enough to sustain him into another four years, we shall see.

On a lighter trip (?) – I do still -ahem- hope – he figures out how to enact his campaign promises. Is he man enough?

@SM:

@TANK:

You live here 24 hours a fucking day!

You blame and hate on everyone and everything.

Get to a shrink!

FUCK YOU!

[Ed: Comments like these get you removed from Queerty.]

ED,
YOU’VE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!
SOMEONE CALLS TANK OUT ON HIS HATE FILLED IGNORANT RANTS AND YOU THREATEN TO BAN THEM FROM QUEERTY!? WTF!!!

YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING MESSED UP!

@InExile:

Yeah, I think he has only told me to ram a broken bottle up my ass once.
I haven’t been treated to one of his wishes of death by cancer, or many of his colourful epithets.

Though are you sure that editing was actually done by admin?
I have never seen them do a damn think about any nasty comments in here, and that was pretty tame.

Plus they usually write in a grey box.

As well, there have been so many fake posts in here it’s a complete joke.

YOU KNOW GOD DAMNED WELL THIS HAS TO BE DONE PROPERLY AND WITHOUT FORCE. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP QUEERTY. YOU ARE DOING NOTHING FOR THE CAUSE.

@tricky ricky: “YOU KNOW GOD DAMNED WELL THIS HAS TO BE DONE PROPERLY AND WITHOUT FORCE”
At least the first time…

0bama can kiss my ass

@SM: The use of vulgar language JUST shows a lack of vocabulary

So once again the homophobe SM is here to say that every horrible law passed against us and everything ever done to us, is our fault. Obama is a really great guy but we just don’t send him enough post cards.

Funny, he’s tackling immigration, and yet I don’t see any rallies being held by illegal immigrants pushing him to do this. So once again, you don’t like gays, we get it, we really do.

Gotta agree with you TARHEEL. I can’t really say SM is (was?) a homophobe, CAM, she did take on YCHTT well at times, but it just seemed to me she was here for 2 reasons: To pat herself on the back for all the work she’s doing on behalf of her brother and to shame us for getting on Obama in these posts.

@Cam:

SM = Postcards From The Edge. LOL

@SM: Most Dems that I know actually have better things to do with their time, like helping teenagers tossed out of their republican homes for being queer.