Does anyone else have a giant bromance crush with Pennsylvania’s U.S. Rep Patrick Murphy? And not just because he users terms like “quarterbacking” to describe what’s going on with the effort to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?
Noticeably, in this interview with Rachel Maddow, Murphy mostly punts on the question of whether the White House is really helping him out in his push. (He also isn’t pushing Obama to use an executive order to halt dismissals, with the argument that the White House shouldn’t be able to ignore Congressional acts.)
But that doesn’t mean he’s dropping the ball: “This was an act of Congress that made DADT into law. It will take an act of Congress to fix that mistake of 16 years ago. It is our job as a Congress to get a backbone, to have the courage to get this passed. We can’t punt this to the president. We can’t punt this to the courts. It’s our job. And it’s my job to quarterback this and we’re gonna make it happen.”
I saw his interview last night with Rachel Maddow. I was very impressed with what he was saying UP UNTIL Rachel asked him about whether Obama should “suspend” enforcement of DADT until congress repeals it.
He showed some ignorance on this issue at that point. He said Obama should NOT use his power to suspend DADT while waiting for congress because that would be the same as the way Bush used to issue “signing statements” to ignore acts of congress.
What Rep Murphy forgets (or is unaware of) is that 16 years ago when congress enacted DADT they also, by act of congress, gave the president the power to suspend it during a time of war. So, Obama using the power he was given by an act of congress to suspend DADT would in NO WAY be anything like Bush’s siging statements.
I was sorry to hear Rep Murphy wasn’t aware of these facts. And, I was also surprised that Rachel Maddow was either unaware of these facts, or chose to not make Rep Murphy aware of them.
PA stand up! It’s a shame not all of our legislators are this friendly…
@TimNCGuy: But Rep Murphy’s bottom line is correct. Overturning DADT is HIS (and all of congresses) job. Why dwell on temporary fixes? We need real action, not a band-aid.
@George: and, why can’t we have BOTH the suspension and then the repeal? Why do you present this as an either / or option?
It will take congress MONTHS to repeal the legislation. What possible rational reason could there be for continuing to discharge qualified personnel while we wait on congress?
So just so I can get this “straight”…
When Barac Obama (you know that black president dude) says that he shouldn’t issue a stop loss because congress should act instead he is absolutely ridiculed and attacked here.
When Patrick Murphy (you know that white hot muscular borderline twink in a position of power) says that Barac Obama shouldn’t issue a stop loss for the exact same reasons that Obama says he won’t we want to give him nothing more than a good “lip service”.
@TimNCGuy: For the love of god, how come everyone brings up this “time of war” crap, but refuses to look at the legal definition in this country of “time of war”. In order for America to be in a “time of war” we have to actually be in a war. Look around, do you see any wars we are in? The answer is no. IRAQ IS NOT A WAR! Iraq is a foreign policing mission. The war part of it ended on that battle ship when GW declared it over more than two years ago.
I don’t recall GW on any battleship declaring the end of the war in Afghanastan do you?
Beside, I don’t buy your definition or your claim that we are not also at war in Iraq. There have been many legal analysts who have reviewed this and concluded that Obama has the power to suspend DADT while waiting for congress to act based on the authority given to the president as part of the DADT legislation.
The stop loss powers were not created in specific relation to DADT, but your larger point is entirely accurate: they DO override DADT and, as great as it is that someone like Murphy is now leading the repeal charge, he needs to wake up to the fact that applying the Congressionally mandated stop-loss law is not remotely analagous to the run around of “signing authorities” [that Democratic presidents have used, too, BTW].
If he GENUINELY cares about the harm to national security and the lives of those gays who continue to be discharged, Murphy will join his 77 Congressional colleagues and call on the president to stop them until the law is repealed.
Once again, your Obambot brainwashing flushed away a lot of facts.
1. Murphy is not being criticized in the same way Obama is because at least Murphy is actively working FOR repeal not simply paying lip service to it like Obama. In addition to this Maddow interview, Murphy held a press conference yesterday in which he formally announced his taking over leadership in the House of that. When Obama holds a press conference about DADT, call us.
2. The stop-loss powers under “10 United States Code 12305” do NOT refer to “time of war” but “a period of national emergency” which the law specifically defines as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”
That would be NOW and, given the low enlistment rates in the regular services that are forcing recruiters to drop regulations that previously banned enlisting convicted felons and to bribe foreign nationals to enlist with the promise of American citizenship, along with the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, will continue for years to come.
@Gomer Pyle: I think if you do some further checking you will find that although the President does have stop loss powers outside of DADT there was also a “specific” stop loss authority for suspending DADT as part of the DADT legislation.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
“Stop-loss” in relation to gays goes all the way back to World War II. It has continued even after the ban on gays went from “policy” to the “law” commonly referred to as DADTDPDH.
Pre the law, during the first Gulf War, a Pentagon spokesman said in relation to gay discharges, “Any administrative procedure is dependent on operational considerations of the unit that would administer such proceedings.” [And they will do whatever the President tells them to, formally or informally.]
It is my understanding that 10 USC 12305 was originally passed by Congress in 1983 and amended several times. Perhaps that’s where the confusion comes in.
In any case, even without any separate, overriding statute about times of “national emergency,” DADTDPDH gives a great deal of leeway to the military to create and administer policies of how to implement it.
Such administrative options are the subject both of an earlier legal analysis by the Palm Center and a second one this week about how the Secretary of Defense could minimize or entirely stop discharges before repeal of the statute occurs. It can be read at:
For whatever reason, after 9/11, President Bush signed executive Order #13223 that said virtually the same thing as 10 USC 12305 It authorized the individual service branches to initiate a stop-loss which allowed them “to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, involuntary retirement, and separation” of military personnel.
And, in the “Army Commander’s Handbook,” updated in 1999 and still in effect, 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.”
And, in 2005, a military spokesperson acknowledged they were sending openly gay service members into combat in Iraq.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
Interesting. Glad Rep Murphy’s trying to “quarterback” it.
As a Pennsylvanian, I’m really proud of Rep. Murphy’s work on this. This commonwealth is incredibly backward in so many ways.
I’m not as informed on this as some of you, but from his interview last night I gathered he didn’t recommend suspending dismissals pending the policy change because it would be hypocritical for democrats to do so after criticizing Bush’s many “signing statements” – not directly comparable, for sure, and indeed he may be punting (or whatever the valid football metaphor is) for the President.
I’d bet he’s persuadable on the matter, however. It’s worth writing and phoning to both thank him for his leadership and also asking him to re-consider his position on suspending dismissals
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
Murphy is absolutely a great guy for doing this, and the right guy in Congress to do it.
But, as Gomer explained above, he’s unfortunately mistaken about equating using a Congressionally passed law to freeze discharges with abuse of signing authorities.
Not only have 77 of his colleagues asked for some type of administrative freeze but so has Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Does he strike anyone as an extremists willing to throw the prodecural equivalents of Molotov cocktails at his own legistlative body’s laws.
Interestingly, the “Washington Blade” has reported that Murphy DOES support a freeze. I’m not certain if they misunderstood or if he changed his mind before or after the Maddow interview.
What I am confidant of is that if he doesn’t understand it now, a man of his sincerity and intelligence will soon come to understand that it is indefensible not to “stop the bleeding” of continuing discharges every day [291 and counting since Obama was sworn in] with the “tourniquet” of ENTIRELY LEGAL stop loss just because Dr. Congress hasn’t arrived yet.
@galefan2004: That can’t be right; the navy hasn’t even *had* an active battleship since the 90’s.
True. The USS Missouri after it was recommissioned for the First Gulf War.
What he is thinking about is the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. And the famous crotch shot. My ex-bf was stationed to the ship.
Comments are closed.