Nobody Agrees On Whether Obama Must Defend DADT. Which Makes Arguing Back And Forth So Much Fun!

Ted Olson: Obama doesn’t have appeal the DADT ruling. Associated Press’ Mark Sherman: Why Obama does. Newsweek‘s Bed Adler: Why Obama does. Okay, now it’s your turn!

Pentagon Will Issue New Rules On Whether Latex Gloves Required To Handle Homosexual Soldiers

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #don'taskdon'ttell(dadt) #logcabinrepublicans #logcabinrepublicansv.unitedstatesofamerica stories and more


  • Tom

    Surely he does if he wants succeeding AG’s to uphold laws passed on his watch-health care, etc.

  • Cam

    The White House claimed that It’s Dpeartment of Justice always HAS to defend any federal law as an explanation for why they keep appealing any gay rights victory in the courts. This is a lie.

    Bush refused to defend ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta,
    Clinton refused to defend Dickerson v. United States.,
    George HW Bush refused to defend Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission.,
    Ronald Reagan refused to defend INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha.,

    Additionally, all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

    So traditionally the President only defends these cases when he wants to and is perfectly within his rights to oppose them.

    Does the White House think that cases such as School desegregation, The Miranda Case, Interacial Marraige etc… are invalid because they came from the Courts and not from Congress?

  • Cam


    The presidents job is to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States, if he actually believes a law to be unconstitutional then it is his duty to not fight to uphold it.

  • Baxter

    If he thinks the law is constitutional, he has to defend it whether he agrees with it or not. If he thinks the law is unconstitutional, he has to fight it whether he agrees with it or not.

  • fradiavolo

    First, the president is NOT required to enforce DADT. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, the Commander-in-Chief has “stop-loss” authority to suspend any provision of law relating to the separation of any member of the armed forces whom the president determines is essential to the national security of the United States, during any period of national emergency, and this administration is on record as stating that discharging individuals on the basis of sexual orientation negatively impacts military readiness. Second,the President is NOT required to defend the legal validity of any statute being challenged on constitutional grounds. There is nothing in any provision of the Constitution or the United States Code which imposes such an obligation on the Executive Branch. Indeed, Cam is absolutely correct; every recent administration has, at some point or another, declined to defend a statute which it deemed to be constitutionally suspect. Put bluntly, the argument that the president has no choice but to enforce DADT and defend its constitutionality is incorrect as a matter of law.

  • reason

    @fradiavolo: You are wrong, stop-loss is in effect right now as we speak. The way DADT was legislated prevents the stopping of expulsions even during stop loss. Cam of course drudges up cases that were ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court (the latter controversial cases), or were not handled properly (the former). The former were also obscure non-controversial issues granted that I couldn’t identify any of them off the top of my head. Your argument is like saying well Obama should roll into all the Muslim countries and start wars becuase Bush unprecedentedly did so, it is nice to have a president that respects the rule of law. I firmly believe that it is wrong to grant such powers to the executive, the hate crimes bill and all other protections for GBLT will be struck down as soon as a religious conservative gets into office. After all they always say their constitutional rights are being violated by producing specially protected classes of people. DADT is a very controversial policy with the bulk of the GOP supporting it, if Obama decides to muddy his hands in this battle, he will literally be opening Pandora’s box whenever the GOP gets back in the white house. I don’t think anyone on here can say that killing DADT through the congress is the most sound way to do it, and that the U.S. Supreme court is a legitimate way to do it.

  • FYI

    Obama admin. opposes Joe and Valerie Wilson’s request for Supreme Court appeal in suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage

    Submitted by crew on 20 May 2009 – 4:15pm. Dick Cheney Joe and Valerie Wilson Obama administration

    CREW learned today that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al. In that case, the district court had dismissed the claims of Joe and Valerie Wilson against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage for their gross violations of the Wilsons’ constitutional rights.

    Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argues the Wilsons have no legitimate grounds to sue. It is surprising that the first time the Obama administration has been required to take a public position on this matter, the administration is so closely aligning itself with the Bush administration’s views.

    In fact, the Obama administration has gone one step further, suggesting Mr. Wilson failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby harmed him. This is particularly ironic because the government had moved to have the case dismissed before the Wilsons had the opportunity to uncover the details of how Ms. Wilson’s covert identity was revealed.

    Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW and one of the Wilsons’ attorneys, said:

    We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson. The government’s position cannot be reconciled with President Obama’s oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions.



    Submitted by crew on 20 May 2009 – 4:15pm.


    My Take On It:

    The writing has been on the wall for a long time. Barack O’Bush is just an extension of the debacle from the first eight years of the 21st century. What’s old is new again. “The Mendacity of Hope” (title of a great book exposing the charlatan which is Obama).

    “Change You Can Deceive On”…

  • Michael

    @reason: It’s amazing how people will thumb this down even though it is 100% true. People would rather stubbornly throw a tantrum and click “thumb down” instead of accepting the truth.

  • Steven E

    First of all, the 1st amendment does NOT apply to the military, therefor one cannot argue that DADT is unconstitutional based on the first amendment. Second, I think Obama and the members of congress are pissed because this judge made them look bad. The bill to repeal DADT is in the works. Unfortunately most things don’t get done in congress quickly. This judge essentially swooped in and stole their thunder, and now they’re pissed. They all wanted to be the “heroes” that ended DADT.

Comments are closed.