Prop 8 protest calls out Obama (Dallas)

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_11336.php

Six months ago, black lesbian activist Chastity Kirven stood in the plaza of Dallas City Hall and led the crowd in a deafening chant of then-President-elect Obama’s campaign mantra, “Yes We Can. Yes We Can.”

On Tuesday, May 26, Kirven stood on the patio outside Throckmorton Mining Co. and blasted the Obama administration for allegedly failing to keep the promises he made to the LGBT community. 

“I’ve got news for you, President Obama — we’re not going away, we’re here to stay,” Kirven told the crowd. “Tell President Obama, it’s not just the GOP that’s on his butt right now. He now has some pissed gays and lesbians who are going to hold him just as accountable. … All I’ve got to say is, I’m tired of you leaving your promises on the nightstand as you walk out the door after you’ve screwed me. Do something. Prove that you can make history to us. Don’t only be the first black president. Give equal rights to every American.”

While her remarks were perhaps the most incendiary, Kirven wasn’t the only speaker who took square aim at Obama during Tuesday’s Day of Decision Rally, which drew hundreds to the Cedar Springs strip to protest the California Supreme Court’s decision earlier in the day upholding Proposition 8. 

:sarcasm:

You hold your breath.

Don't worry, I know CPR.

Being a "fierce advocate"?

:eyes:

to complain about POTUS?

The analysis underlying this seems muddy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5739310

This isn't about California, it's about Obama's inaction.

See 10 USC § 654

The regulatory issues arise under 10 USC § 654(e)(2) in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense &c&c

I'd guess the relevant regulations are in 32 CFR; feel free to dig up the relevant regulations and explain to me your POV based on them. Some possible pitfalls: there will be some context of Administrative Law associated with them, if the regulations even exist, and a rule-making process may be needed to bring the regulations into the form you want; that could take several years, and it would provide a pretext for congress to take the attitude that the Executive could fix minor problems with DADT by rule-making instead of repeal of 10 USC § 654

easily show some compassion for the Prop 8 fight in California. That's leadership and that's what we should be able to expect from this president.

the regulations governing national interest separation waivers, as required by 10 USC 654(e)

A positive proof of the claim that such separation waivers could be effected uniformly by .. a pen stroke would require at least an examination of the existing waiver rules, since the statute explicitly references such regulations. The history of 10 USC 654 may suggest that the President does not have the simple universal waiver penstroke authority you claim, since the statute arose from a political compromise that (only slightly) ameliorated the prior and more intolerant framework: Clinton had sought to eliminate the discharge completely, encountered strong organized resistance, and settled on DADT as a (small) step forward; if a simple universal waiver penstroke authority exists today, it existed in Clinton's day and meant that 10 USC 654 was moot at passage; Clinton, however, apparently did not take such a view, since he did not issue any universal waiver -- and in any case the Courts would have been unlikely to uphold the view that such a political compromise produced a law that had no practical effort

After eight years of a selectively lawless Executive, of course, it is tempting to expect selective lawlessness to continue, with a different philosophical notions underlying which laws will be respected and which ignored -- but it is preferable to attempt to recreate a culture in which unjust laws are repealed, rather than simply disregarded at the whim of the Executive

Unlike Clinton, Obama is in two wars with a depleted force which is now in a suicide epidemic. Staffing is an issue. Were Obama to cite national security as he very easily and truthfully could, it would be a political catastrophe for whoever opposed him. He has a perfect opportunity to make this right and right now.

Suspending DISCRIMINATION via signing statement or executive order is not lawlessness. Obama has already used signing statements and the use of executive orders goes back to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation as I'm sure you well know.

The statute explicitly requires that any non-separation comply with those regulations

Keep struggling!

Legislative action is still required to permanently remove “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Since MREA was first introduced in 2005, it has remained a stand-alone, unicameral bill. Passage of the bill would be the best way to permanently eliminate “don’t ask, don’t tell” for the following reasons: First, since the current policy is based on a statute passed by Congress, its permanent elimination will require legislative or judicial action. Second, the legislation as currently written would establish a uniform code of conduct across the military for all service members, gay and straight, without regard to sexual orientation. Evidence from foreign militaries indicates that this is one of the most important steps for
the successful transition to a policy of inclusion.

Bill info: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1283

Not everyone agrees with the Palm Center EO proposal, but lots of people agree that DADT must be repealed

He heads the Executive. The Executive's check on the Legislative is that the Executive gets to choose when and how laws are enforced. It wouldn't be hard to say, "DADT repeal has been in committee in the House for 2 months. Until there is legislative action on the regulation, we will not enforce these laws."

There's even precedent: Look at the people saying we don't need more gun control laws, we just need to enforce the laws on the books. But. But. But. Of course those laws are enforced. THEY'RE ON THE BOOKS! THEY'RE LAWS!

Barring this, I'd hope that, even though I don't expect random DUers to have passed their high school government course, I would expect that a Constitutional scholar President would have.

It is, of course, a theory advanced by Republican presidents from Nixon onwards. The theory you advance is far too sweeping. Under that theory, there is no option to go to court to demand Executive enforcement of an environmental standard, for example. Carried to its logical conclusion, your theory could mean that the legal climate in the US partitioned into two non-overlapping sets of law, one set enforced when a Republican was Executive, the other enforced when a Democrat was Executive. That would be an untenable state of affairs

It is true that enforcement is prioritized, by a combination of actual Congressional funding decisions and subsequent Executive program allocations. Thus, in some sense, there is a potential budgetary attack on DADT -- but it is much less satisfactory than direct repeal

You have my pity.

because the real intent of such a theory is to shutdown suits like this:

Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club Sue EPA for Failing to Properly Regulate Air Pollution From Nitric Acid Plants
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/environmental-integrity-project-and-sierra,706586.shtml

Of course, if you really want a small ineffective movement, you should continue to push a rightwing theory of the Presidency -- and you should try whenever possible to take cheap shots at people, instead of attempting tyo produce a principled analysis

It's how checks and balances work. Seriously, I've got one government class in high school, two poli sci classes in college and the training that Marine Corps officers get and I know this. It's not rocket science. It's how the government is supposed to work.

Then ask Congress to take it up.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1283 :

Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 1283 IH


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1283
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 3, 2009
Mrs. TAUSCHER (for herself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Ms. MATSUI, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR of Arizona, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SESTAK, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WELCH, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. WU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to institute in the Armed Forces a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

The following provisions of law are repealed:

(1) Section 654 of title 10, United States Code.

(2) Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note).

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Establishment of Policy- (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation

`(a) Policy- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces.

`(b) Discrimination on Basis of Sexual Orientation- For purposes of this section, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is--

`(1) in the case of a member of the Armed Forces, the taking of any personnel or administrative action (including any action relating to promotion, demotion, evaluation, selection for an award, selection for a duty assignment, transfer, or separation) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation; and

`(2) in the case of a person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces, denial of accession into the Armed Forces in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

`(c) Personnel and Administrative Policies and Action- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not establish, implement, or apply any personnel or administrative policy, or take any personnel or administrative action (including any policy or action relating to promotions, demotions, evaluations, selections for awards, selections for duty assignments, transfers, or separations) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

`(d) Rules and Policies Regarding Conduct- Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, from prescribing or enforcing regulations governing the conduct of members of the Armed Forces if the regulations are designed and applied without regard to sexual orientation.

`(e) Re-Accession of Otherwise Qualified Persons Permitted- Any person separated from the Armed Forces for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct in accordance with laws and regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this section, if otherwise qualified for re-accession into the Armed Forces, shall not be prohibited from re-accession into the Armed Forces on the sole basis of such separation.

`(f) Sexual Orientation- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.'.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended--

(A) by striking the item relating to section 654; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new item:

`656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation in the Armed Forces.'.

(b) Conforming Amendments- Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) Section 481 is amended--

(A) In subsection (a)(2), by inserting `, including sexual orientation discrimination,' after `discrimination' in subparagraphs (C) and (D); and

(B) in subsection (c), by inserting `and sexual orientation-based' after `gender-based' both places it appears.

(2) Section 983(a)(1) is amended by striking `(in accordance with section 654 of this title and other applicable Federal laws)'.

(3) Section 1034(i)(3) is amended by inserting `sexual orientation,' after `sex,'.

SEC. 5. BENEFITS.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act').

SEC. 6. NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to create a private cause of action for damages.

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall revise Department of Defense regulations, and shall issue such new regulations as may be necessary, to implement section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a). The Secretary of Defense shall further direct the Secretary of each military department to revise regulations of that military department in accordance with section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a), not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such revisions shall include the following:

(1) Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.

(2) Revision of Department of Defense and military department personnel regulations to eliminate procedures for involuntary discharges based on sexual orientation.

(3) Revision of Department of Defense and military department regulations governing victims' advocacy programs to include sexual orientation discrimination among the forms of discrimination for which members of the Armed Forces and their families may seek assistance.

(b) Regulation of Conduct- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall ensure that regulations governing the personal conduct of members of the Armed Forces shall be written and enforced without regard to sexual orientation.

(c) Definition- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' has the meaning given that term in section 656(f) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a).

This looks completely ordinary to me

Did you want the House to vote on it up or down the day it was introduced?

Why not lean on Congress and try to get it back out of Committee with a favorable report?

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is a bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in the 109th and 110th Congress by Marty Meehan and the 111th Congress by Ellen Tauscher.

Bingo!

If you want Congress to do something, pressure Congress: it doesn't help jackshit to lean on Obama

The President made the campaing promises that he is being held to.

It’s a political consideration. It’s the power of POTUS, the bully pulpit, fund raising and the top spot in the national organization of a political party and in the political hierarchy of government.

Twist arms, make phone calls, summon recalcitrant members of Congress for a heart to heart in the oval office. Think Lyndon Johnson. Set the parties agenda and keep major campaign promises.

..............
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50785D20090108

As head of the party, Kaine said he hopes to promote Obama's agenda and extend some of his signature tactics, such as soliciting small-dollar contributions from a broad base rather than relying solely on large contributors.

...........
http://www.answers.com/topic/presidency?nafid=22
In practice the presidency has been an evolving office. Each chief executive has put his stamp on it through the force of his personality and the requirements of the day. The president is now the central American political figure, a constant source of news and symbol of the nation. He has become the de facto head of his political

...........
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/01/the-first-imper.html

Political party chief

Think about it. Some of the president's power comes from being the head of the executive branch, of course, but a surprising amount of it comes from being the head of a political party. Why? Because Congress, the supposedly independent branch of government to which the Founders gave the job of checking the president's power, is — against the Founders' wishes — filled with members of the president's party. And if they challenge or in any other way weaken the head of their party, they make it far harder for themselves to get re-elected. And so Congress not only doesn't function as the lead branch of government, as the Founders intended, it more often than not fails as an effective check on the president's power.

Senate minority leader for two, and Senate majority whip for two, before he became VP. Less than three years later, when he became President, he had decades of experience and an expert grasp of the politics and personalities of the Senate, that he could use for horse-trading

Mr. Obama seems unlikely to begin twisting arms after the manner of Mr. Johnson: his background and temperament are different, and it is not at all clear that he could successfully copy Mr. Johnson's style from nearly a half-century ago

there hasn't been enough pressure to move it forward

Mr. Obama is oriented towards consensus, so he wants a Commission to "study" the issue, with action in 2010. The Commission proposal gives the House an excuse not to act, and 2010 being an election year, the prospects for movement then may be dim. A quarter of the House has signed on as co-sponsors, so I'd think people should push now if people want this to go somewhere -- but of course I'm not an expert observer

The one who made the campaign promise is accountable.

One man has the power to influence policy and to set policy. Should we lobby the executive and legislative?
That's not even at issue. The issue is we know who campaigned on the promise to repeal DADT, we believe him and believed he knew what he meant when he said he would repeal DADT, even if it means arm twising in Congress. The fastest way is through the white house to put the pressure on Congress.

(1)LGBT Community holds Obama’s feet to the fire on campaign promises
Jan 2nd, 2009 | By Jody May-Chang |
http://www.pridedepot.com/?p=738680
.........
Candidate Obama’s letter to the GLBT community:
http://www.pridedepot.com/images/ObamaToLGBTCommunity.pdf
........

http://www.queerty.com/obama-promises-lesbian-lieutenant-i-will-fulfill-my-commitment-to-changing-dadt-20090507/

Sandy– Thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment!"

Reading between the lines, however, we see this: Obama says he's "committed to changing" Don't Ask Don't Tell, which is not the same as "repealing." That difference in wording is what got Obama into trouble when the White House website revamped the president's Civil Rights section and replaced a promise to repeal DADT with a commitment to "changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way."

Also: A built-in excuse for not tackling the subject right away "because it needs Congressional action." What else needs Congressional action? Bailing out Wall Street, but he got that done overnight.

............
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/Slow+going+for+promise+to+overturn+ban+on+gays+in+military

Slow going for promise to overturn ban on gays in military
Source: Los Angeles Times
Author(s): Los Angeles Times

President Barack Obama's campaign vow to end the ban on gays in the military - and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that forces thousands of military personnel to stay in the closet - appears to be driven now by a strategy of "Don't Rush."

The recent coming-out by dozens of gay West Point graduates, including Arabic language specialist Lt. Daniel Choi, has spotlighted the conflicting policies and put pressure on Congress and the White House to make good on promises to repeal them.

<snip>
But neither Congress nor the White House appears eager to reopen the bitter debate over gays in the military that transpired during the early years of the Clinton administration.

"They're caught in a political double bind. If they move too quickly, they will expend political capital with the military and Congress. Yet if they move too slowly, they will alienate a core constituency and fail to deliver on a very clear campaign promise," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Santa Barbara institute, which casts its studies as intended to inform discussion of controversial issues with evidence rather than emotion.


A report issued this month by the University of California, Santa Barbara, Palm Center research institute asserted that Obama already has the power to thwart what he sees as discrimination in discharging military personnel for their sexual orientation. Under the stop-loss provision, Obama can issue executive orders to retain any soldier deemed necessary to the service at this time of national emergency, the report noted.

The president also could halt the work of Pentagon review panels that brand soldiers as gay and thus excluded from service, according to the report. And the president and his defense secretary could revise discharge procedures, as allowed under the 1993 statute.
..........

http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m5d1-Obama-steps-backwards-on-gay-rights
The changes were first spotted yesterday by eagle-eyed blogger Joe My God, who noticed that eight specific promises for gay rights had been whittled down to just three. The eight promises that originally appeared were (1) including sexual orientation in hate crimes law, (2) passing ENDA, (3) supporting civil unions and repealing DOMA, (4) opposing a Contitutional amendment banning gay marriage, (5) repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, (6) expanding adoption rights to include gay parents, (7) promoting AIDS prevention, and (8) empowering women to prevent HIV/AIDS.

As of yesterday, the list of promises was down to just three - passing ENDA, supporting civil unions (but no mention of repealing DOMA), and opposing a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Today, this is what it says on the White House civil rights page:

President Obama ... continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Conyers says he has votes to repeal Defense of Marriage Act
By Todd A. Heywood 5/19/09 10:39 AM

DETROIT — U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, said Saturday in an interview with Michigan Messenger that the votes are in place in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Gay rights advocates have been working to get the law repealed as more states pass laws allowing same-sex couples to get married.

“Well in my committee, yes, but in the House and Senate, that’s a different question,” Conyers said in terms of a DOMA repeal passing ... http://michiganmessenger.com/19294/conyers-says-he-has-votes-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act

It doesn't make diddly-squat difference what Obama says or does, if we can't count beans and twist arms to line up votes in House and Senate

You're belaboring the obvious and ignoring politics while playing at semantics about legislation.

Why did he campaigning on gay issues? Are you telling us he had no idea how government worked?

Or was it my point, that as the head of a political party and in the oval office he can twist arms and get dems to fall in line and he knew that and now is silent and absent on these issues?

Also, it has already been pointed out that the battle is on multiple fronts including Congress.

.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson



Johnson was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his arm twisting of powerful politicians.
Civil rights

President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests behind him is Martin Luther King, Jr. "Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

Public statement by Lyndon B. Johnson of July 2, 1964 about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. John Kennedy originally proposed the Act and had lined up the necessary votes in the House to pass his civil rights act by the time of his death in November 1963. However, for the fight in the Senate, Johnson was the one to get it pushed through. He signed it into law on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.<33>

In 1965, he achieved passage of a second civil rights bill, the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in voting, thus allowing millions of southern blacks to vote for the first time. During that year, "seven of the eleven southern states of the former confederacy"<34> were granted this right. The voting right was given to the following states: " Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia and North Carolina."<35> Texas, home to the majority of the African American population at the time, was only granted this right in 1975.<36>

After the murder of civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo, Johnson went on television to announce the arrest of four Ku Klux Klansmen implicated in her death. He angrily denounced the Klan as a "hooded society of bigots", and warned them to "return to a decent society before it's too late." He turned the themes of Christian redemption to push for civil rights, thereby mobilizing support from churches North and South.<37>


President Johnson meets with Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King in the White House Cabinet Room in 1966.At the Howard University commencement address on June 4, 1965, he said that both the government and the nation needed to help achieve goals:

“ To shatter forever not only the barriers of law and public practice, but the walls which bound the condition of many by the color of his skin. To dissolve, as best we can, the antique enmities of the heart which diminish the holder, divide the great democracy, and do wrong — great wrong — to the children of God...<38> ”

In 1967, Johnson nominated civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall to be the first African American Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

...........

brilliant grasp of the Senate. All three branches of government repeatedly grappled with civil rights issues through the 1950s: earlier and less effective voting rights acts passed in 1957 and 1960, after some years of effort, during which bills were proposed and rejected. The act that passed in 1964 left the Judiciary Committee in 1963, a year which saw enormous activity, violence, and news coverage: the Birmingham campaign in April and May, the assassination of Medgar Evars in June, the March on Washington in August, and the church bombing in September. In November, Kennedy (who supported the bill) was assassinated. Meanwhile, the process of ratification of the poll tax amendment was ongoing; it was added to the constitution in early 1964. The Freedom Summer mobilization followed. Thus, Johnson was able to draw on widespread public desire for a meaningful Kennedy legacy, his own unique ability to lean on Senate members, and political momentum that had both mainstream (constitutional amendment) and activist movement (Freedom Summer) components

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/Research/Digital_Documents/Civil_Rights_Civil_Rights_Act/CivilRightsActfiles.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.php
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html#1960
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.core-online.org/History/freedom_summer.htm

It was direct executive action--Kennedy's Civil Rights bill--that kick-started the realization of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On June 11, 1963, Kennedy introduced his bill to the nation, via both radio and television, in his "Report to the American People on Civil Rights." On June 19, 1963, he sent the bill to Congress.

*******************************

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated...

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes sexual minorities; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes sexual minorities...

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham California and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South East and West, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.

It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.

Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.

Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law...

showing peaceful protesters attacked by Bull Connor's dogs and firehoses. The KKK then bombed the Gaston Motel. In June 1963, when Kennedy asked Congress to act, University of Alabama desegregation had become such a crisis that National Guard intervention was required; Medgar Evers was assassinated the next day. Kennedy did send language to Congress shortly afterwards, but Congress strengthened the language considerably; nevertheless, despite such horrors as the church bombing, the bill remained stuck in the committees until after assassination of Kennedy. Final passage didn't occur until about a year after Kennedy's address, three and a half years after his election -- at the beginning Freedom Summer

To portray this merely as involving Kennedy or Johnson preaching from a bully pulpit misses essential features of the final accomplishment



http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/i?pp/ils:@field(NUMBER+@band(ppmsca+04293)):displayType=1:m856sd=ppmsca:m856sf=04293


http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Multimedia.jsp?id=m-2545

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976752418
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03CivilRights06111963.htm

"To portray this merely as involving Kennedy or Johnson preaching from a bully pulpit misses essential features of the final accomplishment"

No one has offered such a portrayal. The point of the post is to correct YOUR erroneous portrayal -- grossly minimizing Kennedy's role in effecting the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This wasn't one day ago. It's now been two months.

In the interim, it's not unreasonable to suspend investigation and discharge pending legislative action. That is, if Obama were not a heterosexist or coward.

I'm pretty sure that if an activist movement could bring down South African apartheid, an activist movement could dislodge a stuck bill in DC

should the Democrats get their asses in gear and repeal DADT, then Obama had no part in the repeal and gets no credit, right?

What a failure he has been on GLBT issues. And apologists like you are the reason he is able to get away with it.

As has been pointed out many times, there are many things Obama could do ALL BY HIMSELF to further the cause of equality. Things he is NOT DOING.

I don't know how many of you Obamapologists are self-deluded clowns, and how many are actually paid operatives for the Democratic Party and/or administration, but you all seem to come to the table with nothing. When confronted with Obama's failure to stand up for gay people, you invariably come up defenseless, like Obama himself. All that remains is for you stamp off in a huff, not having made a single valid argument. That's how ALL these discussions end.

:rofl:

If you're one, you can go back to your masters and tell them THIS homo's not buying their shit any more. If you just a mindless Obamabot, it doesn't matter who you go back to. Just go.

something said to "my masters" (whoever you imagine them to be), I think you should say it yourself and not ask me to carry messages for you

It's certainly the sentiment on the street here.

large groups of GLBT Americans and their allies are getting pissed off. Just this week I have had people in my street that never talk politics (but vote and are Dems) come up to me and say they are sorry for Obama's apparent inaction that he needs to at least make a public statement. People are noticing. I only hope its not too late before everyone starts demanding action or we may end up with a GOP in the white house. There were lots of new voters this last election - they tend to not show up and vote after seeing a person they trusted not act on his promises.

If we want to keep a Dem in the highest office we need to stop making excuses for Obama and demand respect and open honest communication on what his plans are and where he is with them and how he plans to implement them. Otherwise a whole new generation of voters are going to turn their back once again.

once people see that all you are is a common, off the rack, politician, they're not gonna break ther necks for you again

He would also go on to say that justice delayed is justice denied.

Wow - so true. Thanks for posting that - Im constantly amazed and proud that our country had such leaders at one time:) Here's to hoping there are still more left to fight the good fight...

And was profoundly struck by the fact that MLK thoroughly debunked every single argument and talking point made by the "poutrage patrol" of his own day. And the fact that, despite the differences in circumstances, every one of those arguments and talking points are leveled against LGBT rights activists and our allies today, almost 50 years later.

The arguments have not changed in almost 50 years, nor the people making them. It's simultaneously sad as hell and enough to make you hopeful. We're on the right side of history, and 50 years from now people will study our words and these arguments and wonder just what the fuck was wrong with people.

He knew what was up and yet, was so graceful and eloquent while determined and clear thinking.

Thank you for sharing and teaching!