President Harry Truman Wipes Out Military Segregation

"By Executive Order--President Truman Wipes Out Segregation in Armed Forces."
Chicago Defender, July 31, 1948.
Copyprint from microfilm.
Serial and Government Publications Division. (9-2)
Courtesy of the Chicago Daily Defender, Chicago, Illinois.

On July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman issued two executive orders. One instituted fair employment practices in the civilian agencies of the federal government; the other provided for "equality of treatment and opportunity in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion,or national origin."

This was a major victory for civil rights advocates in the quest for full citizenship.



Press release for Executive Order No. 9981, establishing the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces.
July 26, 1948.
Typescript document.
NAACP Collection, Manuscript Division. (9-1)
Courtesy of NAACP

this is exactly how Barack Obama could end DADT in the armed forces.

An executive order. Timely, time-honored, and the perfect solution - if only he had the balls.

Did you know that Executive Orders are numbered?

Do you know what Executive Order Number 1 is?

The Emancipation Proclamation, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.

Some things must go past Congress. They are far too important to be entrusted to a group of beholden bigots with far more mercenary agendae, who have no truck with equal rights for gays.

I wish Obama would just sign it and get it done with......................

go through Congress says more than anything else.

Equal rights, huh? Not from where I'm standing, Barack!

FDR could desegregate with an executive order because the segregation was simply standing policy, NOT federal law. DADT is a Federal Statute, congress needs to overturn it. Obama can't do it by himself. Period. It has nothing to do with whether he has the "balls", he doesn't have the authority.

Unless you are suggesting the president has the authority to declare any law null and void simply by unilateral proclamation? If so, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

emotional argument at stake.

Things look good from up on the veranda, eh? :eyes:

Discrimination is discrimination. It's ALWAYS WRONG.

that doesn't mean it can be fixed by presidential edict.

If it can be granted by edict, it can be taken away by edict. Isn't it better to have congress repeal the law, and make it unchallangeable?

WHY ACCEPT HALF-MEASURES?

Just because you're unfamiliar with the vagaries of how laws are made, interpreted, overturned, and/or changed, don't go leaping to silly conclusions.

You might hurt yourself...................

Feel free to leave the comfort of "the house" anytime...

http://www.palmcenter.org/

"New Study: Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order
SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 11, 2009 –

A study released today by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order.


SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 11, 2009 – A study released today by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order. The idea of ending the ban by executive order has gained momentum in the wake of news that mission-critical personnel, including Arabic language speaker Dan Choi, continue to be fired under the Obama administration because they’re gay. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order to end the ban on Saturday and National Security Adviser James Jones was asked about it by George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. The report, “How to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,” is sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Many have argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”

There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says. First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation” Under the law “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” during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”

The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense… in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation." Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members “if” a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the “authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made.”

Diane H. Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law and another study co-author, said the presidential authority to stop firing gay troops, known as “stop-loss,” is different from the highly unpopular stop-loss policy that the Army recently announced it would phase out. “That use of stop-loss forcibly extends service by those who wish to leave the military,” she said, “whereas suspending discharges for homosexuality would do the opposite: allow ongoing service by those who wish to remain in uniform.” The study says the provisions of the stop-loss law, which are granted by Congress, are “sensible because they give the President authority to suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained personnel requirements.”

The other four authors of the study in addition to Mazur and Belkin are Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a Palm researcher and author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America”; Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis; Dr. Elizabeth L. Hillman, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law; and Bridget J. Wilson, who practices law at Rosenstein Wilson & Dean in San Diego. The report will also be published in a forthcoming book, "Department of Defense Social Policy Perspectives 2010," edited by James Parco, David Levy and Fred Blass."

###

The Palm Center is a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Center uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Its data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high-quality information is available.

It is the law itself that needs to be overturned. Obama's issuing an executive order would NOT overturn the law, but preserve it to be re-instituted by a later executive.

It is STILL up to congress to overturn DADT. Why settle for a half-measure?

anything to end DADT. Nice of you to try to give him cover, but half-measures are better than none, and Obama won't even take that.

There are steps Obama could take to suspend DADT, they've talked about it on Olbermann. There are things he could do to put a stop to it until Congress finds time is forced to deal with it.

with "signing statements." Two different things, and I think - I haven't researched it, honestly - Fuckface signed signing statements into the ground. I don't know his record on Executive Orders.

It probably sucks, like pretty much everything he did...............

and I'd love to see it.

It would be a two-step process, the first step being the Order in which the President suspends DADT, followed by an Order that renders discrimination on the basis of sexual identity illegal.

It's always worth a try, but it would take real balls to try it. That DADT is allowed to stand is nothing but a shame on all of us, and Bill Clinton in particular.

As a Constitutional lawyer, I'd like to watch this happen ...............

Authority to repeal DADT

The Obama administration has stated that it is Congress, not the president, which has the authority to lift the ban. However, in May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara<29> concluded that it is within the authority of the executive branch to discontinue the policy.<30>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

Don't go confusing the confused with facts.

That's just, uh, you know, oh, what's the word?

Gorgeous.......................

:fistbump:

and overturning the law.

one Order suspending the current law, and a second Order instituting full equality.

Surely we Americans are in favor of full equality for all, just as our favorite historical documents call it, right?

step one suspending ENFORCEMENT of the current law (which is a matter of questionable legality - can we pick and choose which laws we enforce? The only cover for that is the extremely questionable law passed to let Bush set aside standing laws in order to prosecute his war), and then the overturning of the law by congress. THAT is the two-step process outlined in the 30 page document.

You have to free yourself of the constraints you've put yourself under and try to see what are the ways in which the objective can be achieved.

Harry Truman famously said that he didn't want lawyers to tell him what he couldn't do - he wanted lawyers to tell him what he could do.

I happened to have been fortunate enough to have worked for a man who was Mr. Truman's White House Counsel (although it wasn't called that back then), and he once spent a long and wonderful afternoon detailing for me the way in which Mr. Truman used the Executive Order to desegregate the armed forces. I also got a great tutorial in the history of the Executive Order from that wonderful man.

Sometimes, and you want to consider this in an historical context, some things are so reprehensible they must be addressed in extraordinary ways. Segregating the Armed Forces was one wrong that needed to be remedies as expeditiously as possible, as was slavery - hence, the Emancipation Proclamation.

You seem to have forgotten about Dred Scott. If you're not familiar with that name, I urge you to read about what it means in American history, and why Executive Orders are sometimes the only way to do right................

THERE WAS NO FUCKING FEDERAL LAW ON THE BOOKS PROHIBITING SEGREGATION IN THE MILITARY.

An executive order CANNOT overrule federal law. Congress MUST repeal the law. The president does not have that authority.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, you might note it only applied to slaves in states that were in rebellion as a punitive response to rebellion - IOW, it was a WAR measure, not a civil rights measure. If he had declared that ALL slaves were to be immediately freed he would have enflamed passions in the border states and lost their support, possibly losing the war. You're talking apples and lug nuts - there is NO correlation.

rules in the Pentagon - they're sometimes called "regulations," and have the force of law - at the time Truman signed the EO.

I never claimed the Emancipation Proclamation was anything except the legitimate exercise of executive power in the face of an untenable situation. You're putting all sorts of inappropriate gloss on it.

You surely are worked up about this. Calm down. It's a message board............

...Yes, he can...the constitution gives the President "executive authority" and presidents in the past have used this to skirt or get around legislation. Obama would be following precedent in doing so. Sure, some in congress might have a fit, sure someone might file a lawsuit, but it has NEVER been determined whether a President is wihtin his power to do so....so do it and get the ball rolling.

...you shouldn't just parrot the Kool-Aid talking points without researching this.

"Executive authority" is not unlimited. It does not extend to simply abolishing existing federal laws because the president decides to say so. Do you have the tiniest clue what that would mean? The president would be imbued with effectively unlimited power. That "if the president does it that means it's legal" statement made famous by Nixon? It would be TRUE. The president would possess the authority to legalize ANY action he wanted to take without any form of check or balance.

You just declared that you think the office of the President supersedes the law of the nation.

So are you joking, or just completely out of your mind?

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf

Dear cheerleader, please don't bother to respond unless you've read the document in its entirety...

Nowhere does it contain any claim that Obama has the authority to end DADT by executive order. And he doesn't even have the authority to temporarily suspend it's active implementation except during a National Emergency... which accomplishes exactly nothing over the long term.

I repeat, the only way to end DADT is for Congress to repeal it. A fact that your own linked document points out itself.

The committee's point and purpose was to devise a means of ending DADT and the surest way of doing so begins with executive order by Obama. No one said that said executive action was to repeal the federal law defining DADT, but that executive order can suspend the execution of DADT policy in terms of investigations and suspensions. By doing so, it paves the way for Congress' passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA) which would effectively repeal DADT. THAT is HOW Obama's executive order would effectively end DADT and he has both the power and the authority to issue said executive order today. The Palm Center report even included a draft executive order to drive this point home. Sorry you missed it (the point, that is.)


1) The executive branch has the authority to suspend homosexual conduct discharges
without legislative action.

The process of lifting the ban on service by openly gay personnel is both political and
military in nature. While research shows that the planned policy change does not pose an
unmanageable risk to the military, how the transition is executed politically can affect
how smoothly the change is implemented. The President has the authority to issue an
executive order halting the operation of "don't ask, don't tell." Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305
(“Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement,
and Separation”), military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a
reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty. We believe that issuing such
an order would be beneficial to military readiness, as it would minimize the chances of
replaying a debate that is already largely settled but could still inflame the passions of
some in the military. Once gay people are officially serving openly in the military, it will
become clear to those with concerns about the policy change that service by openly gay
personnel does not compromise unit cohesion, recruiting, retention or morale. This in
turn will make it easier to secure the passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act
(MREA) in Congress, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” While it would be
optimal to see lawmakers embrace repeal by passing MREA, it may not be politically
feasible to do so, despite overwhelming public support and Democratic control of
Congress. Conservative Democrats in Congress may oppose MREA, and the White
House may not wish to expend the political capital necessary to overcome their
resistance. The executive option may end up costing the President less in political capital
than the effort needed to push repeal through Congress. And it could help avoid the
emergence of split military leadership which could make the transition bumpier than it
has to be.

2) Legislative action is still required to permanently remove “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

As stated in #1, above, pushing MREA through Congress may best be done after an
executive order first halts discharges for homosexual conduct.

###################################################################################

Draft Executive Order Suspending Discharges for Homosexual Conduct

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States of America, in order to retain members of the armed forces essential to national
security, I hereby order as follows:
Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this order:
1. “Implementing regulations” means Department of Defense Instruction 1304.26,
“Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction” (July 11,
2007); Department of Defense Instruction 1332.14, “Enlisted Administrative
Separations” (August 28, 2008); Department of Defense Instruction 1332.30,
“Separation of Regular and Reserve Commissioned Officers” (December 11,
2008); and all regulations of the armed forces issued under the authority of these
Instructions.
2. “10 U.S.C. § 654 (Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces)”
means the federal law commonly referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Sec. 2. Authority of the President. Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the
Constitution of the United States, the President has authority as Commander-in-Chief to
retain members of the armed forces serving under his command when essential to the
national security of the United States. Under 10 U.S.C. § 123 (“Authority to Suspend
Officer Personnel Laws During War or National Emergency”) and § 12305 (“Authority of
President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation”),
Congress also has given the President authority to suspend any provision of law relating
to the separation of any member of the armed forces who the President determines is
essential to the national security of the United States, during any period of national
emergency in which members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active
duty.
Sec. 3. Findings.
1. Prior Proclamations and Executive Orders . On September 14, 2001, the President
issued Proclamation 7463 (Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of
Certain Terrorist Attacks) and Executive Order 13223 (Ordering the Ready
Reserve of the Armed Forces to Active Duty).
2. Members of Reserve Components Serving on Active Duty . As of April 7, 2009,
there were 93,993 members of reserve components or retired members serving on
active duty after involuntary activation.
3. Military Readiness and National Security . Retention of members of the armed
forces who may be subject to separation under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 654
24
(Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces) is essential to the
national security of the United States.
Sec. 4. Suspension of 10 U.S.C. § 654. Effective immediately, all investigations,
separation proceedings, or other personnel actions conducted under the authority of 10
U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations shall be suspended. No adverse action shall
be taken under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations after this
period of suspension has ended if the adverse action is based on conduct engaged in or
statements made during this period of suspension. This provision does not bar
investigations, personnel actions or disciplinary proceedings for misconduct.
Sec. 5. Review of Implementing Regulations. During this period of suspension, the
Secretary of Defense shall review all implementing regulations prescribed under the
authority of 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in
Witt v. Department of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008). The Secretary of
Defense shall determine whether the implementing regulations should be revised and, if
necessary, whether amendments to 10 U.S.C. § 654 should be recommended for further
consideration by Congress.
Sec. 6. Entry Standards. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the standards for
enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth
in this order.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the
Secretary of Defense or military commanders to maintain good order and discipline as
provided under other laws of the United States or other regulations of the armed services,
provided such laws and regulations are enforced in a neutral manner, without regard to
sexual orientation or the homosexual or heterosexual nature of conduct.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,

25

Is he not a President of the people?

:fistbump:

It's so easy. And why do people here throw up those straw men - "It's a Federal law and you need the approval of Congress blah blah blah"? I would expect a bit more informed discussion and an embrace of new and creative ways to approach the standing laws.

That's what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and included that cute little proviso about "executive power," don't you know?

:fistbump:

they knew Southerners didn't want a Yankee doing it. Even the Navy was finding little opposition to black sailors being sent to ships as relief crews.

And, yes, if this mattered to the president, something would be done.

I really think people are confusing "Signing Statements" with Executive Orders...............

attention to how pretty and inspiring Obama is, instead of what he's doing, don't know what it is a president is able to do, or how. They aren't concerned with the presidency, only with admiring the president. :eyes:

A cult of personality was a bad thing when Republicans were making puppydog-eyes at Bush, and it's still a bad thing when democrats are making puppydog-eyes at Obama. :(

now we are supposed to support Obama doing the same?

Do you think it'll be worth it?! :scared: :wow: :scared:

(Duncan Grant, c.1948)

the status quo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5806904

I dare not say anymore or I will be quoted some Arthur Hailey or something.

Truman moved on desegregation to head off the Henry Wallace challenge. Note the timing : post '48 DEM convention and pre-election. Wallace was doing well in the polls and threatened to sink HST by siphoning progressive votes . ( Note the Wallace headline in the middle of the page.) Truman had been president for over three years by this time and did not think to desegregate in that time.

Point: there's not whole lot for Obama ( politically) in acting boldly on this issue at this time. He's got momentum currently for pet issues and projects and is unlikely to risk it any time soon, I'm thinking, for a fight with the GOP and the military over DA/DT.

In other words.... we may have a long wait, sorry to say.