Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Executive Order 9981

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

no limit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:04 PM
Original message

Executive Order 9981

On July 26, 1948, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981 establishing equality of treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services allowing African Americans and other minorities to serve in the US military. This historic document can be viewed here:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/9981.htm

Before Truman Roosevelt signed the same thing:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=547

So tell me, what is Obama waiting for? Now that congress clearly won't repeal DADT all Obama has to do is sign an executive order and DADT is effectively repealed. This could be used to end DADT until the supreme court finds it unconstitutional.

The question is why won't Obama do this? The excuse that he doesn't want to make congress mad has turned out to be bullcrap, congress won't play ball. The excuse that he cares too much about the rule of law is also bullcrap, unless you think warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition follows the rule of law.

So? Why won't he do this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

thereismore

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:17 PM
Response to Original message

1. Lincoln also ended slavery in some parts of the US by executive order. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SidDithers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message

2. Truman's EO overturned a military policy...

DADT is a law passed by Congress.

Do you think the President should have authority to nullify any law passed by Congress?

Sid

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no limit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. The jim crow laws prevented blacks from serving side by side whites in the military

so he was overwriting laws.

Do I think the president should be above the law? No. But if he is gonna be above the law on such things as spying and rendition might as well screw the law on this one. DOn't you think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheWraith

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. No they did not. Read some history.

Jim Crow laws were state laws, not federal, and had no binding power on the federal government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Brother Buzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #2

7. Word.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sharp_stick

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message

3. I don't think you can use an executive order

Edited on Mon Oct-04-10 03:26 PM by sharp_stick

to repeal a law enacted by Congress. Obama may be able to use an executive order to force the military to stop actively booting gay people out but that is not repealing DADT.

The only people that can repeal DADT are those that write the laws.

Truman's executive order IIRC involved a military policy, not a law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no limit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. You are right. The law would still exist (until the supreme court overturned it) but...

it would not be enforced. Effectively ending DADT.

And as I said above jim crow laws did call for segregation in the military.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheWraith

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #5

11. State laws can "call for" whatever they like in the military.

They have as much LEGALLY BINDING FORCE on the military as a fart in a bottle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RaleighNCDUer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #3

12. OTOH, the wording of the 'stop loss' law that congress passed

under Bush can be used to stop the discharges of gays as well, at the President's discretion. It doesn't overturn the law, but it can stop its enforcement for the duration of the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Freddie Stubbs

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message

8. There was no law establishing racial segregation in the military

Truman was simply ending a policy, not a law. DADT is the law of the land until Congress repeals it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheWraith

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:36 PM
Response to Original message

9. Apparently this needs to be explained for the umpteenth time.

Edited on Mon Oct-04-10 03:36 PM by TheWraith

Segregation in the military was a military policy. It was IN NO WAY codified by federal law. It was simply how the military did business. Therefore, an order from the CIC overrode it.

DADT is FEDERAL LAW. It cannot be repealed by an Executive Order of any type. It would not be illegal for Obama to order it not enforced, no more than it was legal for Bush to order the laws against torture ignored. He can change the administrative policies covering how it's enforced, WHICH HE HAS DONE, but the only way for it to go away is to be overturned by the SCOTUS, or repealed by Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no limit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #9

13. Top 10 EOs from the Bush administration which went around the law:

http://www.slate.com/id/2209225/

So what is stopping Obama? His respect for the rule of law? See my OP, because that's clearly not it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheWraith

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-05-10 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #13

16. So what you really want is a Democratic Bush.

A unitary executive who will rule with no regard for the law, just doing things the way YOU want them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no limit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-05-10 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #16

17. Obama is already the democratic Bush when it comes to wiretapping, rendition,

and other illegal crap going on when it comes to "the war on terror". So might as well use it for good.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nye Bevan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #9

14. New Study: Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order

Edited on Mon Oct-04-10 07:39 PM by Nye Bevan

SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 11, 2009 – A study released by the Palm Center and written by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order.

After the Palm Center first proposed the executive option, the idea of ending the ban by presidential order gained momentum. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order and National Security Adviser James Jones was then asked about it by George Stephanopoulos.

Prior to the release of Palm's study, many had 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.”

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

Too bad Obama thinks homosexuality is icky. Given that he believes gays should not be allowed to marry, I am fully prepared to believe that he is less than enthusiastic about allowing them to serve.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheWraith

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Oct-05-10 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #14

15. That study was debunked by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

The claim that Obama can eliminate DADT using stop-loss is debunked by the fact that stop-loss specifically excludes homosexuality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-04-10 03:37 PM
Response to Original message

10. Executive Order 9981

Executive Order 9981 is an executive order issued on July 26, 1948 by U.S. President Harry S. Truman. It expanded on Executive Order 8802 by establishing equality of treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services for people of all races, religions, or national origins.

The operative statement is:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and o
pportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

The order also established a committee to investigate and make recommendations to the civilian leadership of the military to realize the policy.

Among the order's effects was the elimination of Montford Point as a segregated Marine boot camp (the camp became a satellite facility of Camp Lejeune). The last of the all-black units in the United States military was abolished in September 1954.

Fifteen years after Truman's order, on July 26, 1963 Robert S. McNamara issued Directive 5120.36 obligating military commanders to utilize the economic might of the military against facilities used by soldiers or their families that discriminated based upon sex or race.

Congress needs two or three votes to repeal DADT for good. President Obama will sign it immediately. No need to give them a reason to drag their feet, and a reason for the process to drag out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:48 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC