77 Congressional Members Call On Obama To Stop DADT

[jefferson_dem]

77 Congressional Members Call On Obama To Stop DADT
By Kerry Eleveld

Seventy-seven Congressional members led by Democratic Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida sent a letter to President Barack Obama Monday urging him to take immediate action to stop the investigations of "don't ask, don't tell" violations. The letter does not call for an executive order halting discharges but rather a change in how the policy is implemented within the Department of Defense.

"It is a presidential moratorium, it is a significant presidential action, but it's not an executive order," said Christopher Neff, political director at the Palm Center, a research institute at University of California, Santa Barbara. "They basically want the military to disregard anyone who 'tells' as long as there isn't a violation or something criminal."

Neff called the move by congressional members "gutsy" and said they were promoting a unique, two-pronged approach to overturning the policy that involved a departmental suspension of investigations followed by congressional repeal of the law.

"Having 77 members step up sends a strong message that there is movement on this issue and that it doesn't have to wait three years for a bill to pass Congress," Neff said.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid92523.asp

[merh]

1. Hastings was a federal district court judge, I don't think he would

encourage the moratorium if he hadn't researched the legalities of the action. I hope Obama follows their advice.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I still don't get why they aren't moving to do the job from their own end.

Congress repealing the law solves the problem. Obama following their advice is merely a band-aid that ends once he leaves office.

[merh]

6. It could be the moratorium will provide congress with the evidence

that repealing DADT won't hurt the military. 77 congress members is not a majority ( 535 members of congress -- 100 senators, and 435 members of the House of Representatives).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Fair enough, but there are plenty of studies and Generals that already support the idea.

Further, if that's what they want, why not just say that instead of just passing the buck?

Finally, this is not to say that there are only 77 that will vote for DADT or DOMA's repeal. That's just 77 congress critters in the House willing to lead the charge. They are very, very different concepts.

[merh]

14. I'd have to read the letter to get a better idea of things

The article contains this bit of information

Neff called the move by congressional members "gutsy" and said they were promoting a unique, two-pronged approach to overturning the policy that involved a departmental suspension of investigations followed by congressional repeal of the law.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Gutsy would be sliding it into an appropriations bill.

I really question Neff's understanding of politics if he thinks this is gutsy.

[LooseWilly]

40. Which is a stopgap until Congress repeals the law, and solves the problem...

Funny how it sounds so much like the most Obama faithful argue that Congress should take care of things... and that Obama shouldn't be expected to do anything?

Maybe all band-aids should be removed from the shelves... as they are obviously now judged worthless... let everyone bleed until a surgeon shows up...

[hulklogan]

2. I hope the President takes this advice seriously.

It really will take a two-pronged approach to rid this country of the disaster that is DADT.

[vaberella]

29. Are you not getting it?! This has nothing to do with Obama.

There's a bill on this scroll down---why isn't Congress working on voting on it. Why don't you ask them why they don't do anything. Obama has to have them vote on it so he can sign it.

[LooseWilly]

39. There's nothing saying that these congresspeople aren't working on voting on it...

The implication is that these congresspeople want Obama to suspend the investigations while Congress works on getting through the voting schedule to get to the bill you mention.

Why, exactly, would that be a problem? I really don't understand the problem people have with Obama suspending the investigations pending Congress making the time to vote on a DADT bill (which would have the bonus effect of putting Obama's popularity squarely behind such a bill)?... Obama obviously wants Congress to address "higher priority" bills first, which suggests that Congress can't drop things like Healthcare and so on... but if Obama were to suspend investigations in the meantime... then he would be mitigating the "badness" of DADT in the meantime. Right?? How would that be bad? (unless you're going to argue that DADT is too much of a sacrifice of popularity... which would suggest that DADT is truly not a priority).

From where I sit... this is a matter of put up or shut up. If it's going to be laid at Congress' feet, then the least Obama can do is suspend investigations to give them more time to work on the issue while mitigating the harm caused by DADT (politically, ethically, and to the military as well). If he can't even be urged to do that much... well... that says something about those who oppose such pressure, in my opinion.

[Zenlitened]

44. Excellent post!

:applause:

[Uzybone]

3. Obama aside, is there any reason there is no legislation on this?

I mean 77 congress people, at least one of them could sponsor a bill.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. I think there is a bill. I just want to know why they aren't pushing Pelosi instead of Obama. (nt)

[hulklogan]

10. There has been a bill in committee since March, HR 1283.

It has close to 150 cosponsors.

[Uzybone]

20. Amazing. We should be banging on Congress daily to get up for vote

Thanks for the info.

[SpartanDem]

11. There is a bill HR 1283 the Military Readiness Act

its being in the Armed Service Committee since March

[vaberella]

30. Where is the stress to get it voted on by us on Congress.

Congress is sitting on it's bum doing nothing in regards to it and yet it's in the system. What a joke?!

[zulchzulu]

7. OK... Congress... pass the legislation. That's your job.

:eyes:

[grantcart]

8. Its simpler for them to send a letter

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. Especially a "strongly worded" letter

:eyes:

C'mon Congress! If they're so concerned about it, get a friggin' bill going!!!! Obama wants it!!!

[TheWraith]

18. Well that way, nobody's on the hook for actually having voted for it.

Passing the buck is a time honored tradition. Pity that now we've got an executive who actually knows what the f--k the constitution says about co-equal branches of government.

[vaberella]

28. Lazy mofos is what I say to that. n/t

[cali]

9. I don't even have to look to know that my Rep was one of the signers.

[Pacifist Patriot]

22. I don't even have to look to know that my Rep wasn't.

:(

[democracy1st]

12. K & R

[jenmito]

15. K& (5th) R!

Hopefully this will get it going, going, GONE!

[TheWraith]

17. PASS THE DAMN BILL THEN!

And fix it the RIGHT WAY instead of a temporary patch that gets Congress off the hook to actually change the law.

[Aloha Spirit]

19. I know! Tsongas is even on the subcommittee.

[vaberella]

27. Thank you TW----What are they waiting on?! They should write it and get it through the system. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

21. What is "gutsy" about seeking action on an issue that is ....

detrimental to our armed forces and opposed by the majority of Americans? The method? Don't get me wrong. I am glad they are doing something. Just wondering why the adjective was used.

[Thrill]

23. Why don't they just bring a bill to the floor and pass it. Typical Congressional Democrats

quick to tell someone else how to do their job, when they aren't even doing their own

[WonderGrunion]

25. If we only have 77 congresscritters supporting the end of DADT

Then we're never going to see it repealed.

[vaberella]

26. Thanks 77..now all you have to do is write the legislation and let's get this going.

Obama said he'd sign. So set it up to repeal.

[hulklogan]

31. HR 1283 has already been introduced in the house and has 146 or 147 cosponsors.

There's no writing necessary, they need to get the bill out of committee. Rep. Skelton, this means you.

[ruggerson]

32. The premise behind this is that there are not enough solid votes in Congress to repeal

as of this moment. So they want Obama to sign an order halting the investigations and the discharges until they have the votes to bring it to the floor and pass the repeal in both the House and the Senate.

The logic is that if DADT is effectively neutered by the Executive, it will make the case for repeal that much easier in a couple of months, when the argument can be that the law isn't working, isn't even being enforced anymore and that the military has not suffered any adverse effects whatsoever from the EO (or memorandum) and, to the contrary) has actually strengthened the armed forces as they are not losing talented servicemembers and destroying people's careers every day.

Yes, it is a statute, but military and legal experts have concluded that the Prez can easily neuter the statute with a stop loss order.

Thus, politically and legally, this becomes a two step process.

Of course, Congress is full of cowards on this issue. And Obama (and the people surrounding him) aren't wild about spending political capital on this. But Obama did make it very clear during the campaign that he would lead forcefully on this issue. So for those of us who think the immediate suspension of this law is more important than protecting the political hides of either the Congress or the President, this strategic route makes a lot of sense. Especially since a super majority of the country supports getting rid of the law, meaning both the WH and Congress have it wrong, and any backlash is likely to be very limited.

[TheWraith]

33. I disagree pretty much completely with their premise.

A temporary suspension now makes it much LESS likely to be repealed by Congress later, since there will be no pressure on them to fix the problem, and it's left on "temporary hold" forever.

We have a 60% supermajority in the House and the Senate, plus a handful of Republicans who are desperately trying to survive 2010. That should be enough to pass the bill even if we let the Blue Dogs go off in their own direction.

[ruggerson]

34. I'm interested in stopping people's lives from being destroyed right now

and I disagree, I think it will make it a lot easier to overturn a law, once a memorandum in place, which renders the statute antiquated, useless and unenforceable.

If Congress can muster up the votes to repeal this in the next month or two, great. Maybe they will. But, as of now, it looks highly unlikely.

[TheWraith]

37. It's not as simple as that--everything done or not done has consequences.

One of the interesting statistics that people don't hear much about is the fact that roughly 18,000 people a year die from lack of access to healthcare. That means that every day that healthcare reform is delayed, another 49 preventable deaths happen. Does that mean nobody cares about them? Of course not. But part of the equation of government is recognizing that there are very rarely any perfect solutions, and sometimes doing things right means that they don't get done fast enough.

Really though, how many congresscritters, or more likely Senators, do you think would vote for a repeal knowing that the 2010 Republican ads would say "So and so voted to force the military to accept homosexuals!" if they couldn't counter with ads saying "Our bill helped increase military readiness, retaining troops and translators vital to protecting our nation from terrorists"?

[LooseWilly]

41. They can say that just the same, if DADT is suspended.

And furthermore they can say that there have been no ill side effects because of its suspension... so there's no reason that its repeal should have any ill side effects. ANd besides.. the Healthcare argument you make suggests that Congress might want to concentrate on Healthcare... and a suspension of DADT gives them the time to do so, and then get around to DADT when the votes are more certain.

On the other hand... if the counter that "Our bill helped increase military readiness, retaining troops and translators vital to protecting our nation from terrorists" was all the argument necessary, then they could pass the bill now (putting off the Healthcare bill work)... but since that's not happened yet... I'd say a suspension would be the more sensible step now... and 77 congresspeople seem to think so as well.

You obviously know better than them though... you'd take the "more gutsy" move of doing nothing.

And no, I don't agree a suspension on Obama's part will give Congress the option of doing nothing... rather I think that it would put increased pressure on Congress... as it would actually become newsworthy the moment that Obama touched the issue...

[TheWraith]

42. But if it's suspended, they had nothing to do with it.

Some Senators would probably prefer it that way, but it's not the best way.

"You obviously know better than them though... you'd take the "more gutsy" move of doing nothing."

Thank you for the lovely strawman. But in fact I think that the legislative branch should actually legislate, rather than passing the buck and most likely resulting in leaving DADT intact.

[LooseWilly]

45. The executive suspension and the congressional legislating are two distinct things.

"... if it's suspended, they had nothing to do with it." That makes no sense as a point. I don't care whether or not "they" have anything to do with a suspension. That one is in Obama's court.
"Some Senators would probably prefer it that way, but it's not the best way." ... you still haven't provided me with a tactical or a strategic analysis that suggests that this is true. I think it is the best way, because a suspension puts Obama's popularity behind the ending of DADT. It is also a stop gap solution, and has the benefit of then letting Congress forget about it until they have time to do it right (without all the deleterious effects on people's lives and the military's manpower in the meantime).
The argument that it would give Congress the cover to do nothing makes no sense to me, as these 77 Congress people, in particular, can monitor the activity, or lack thereof (as they've now shown that they're paying attention to the issue)... and with a series of 3 to 5 news appearances they can whip up a frenzy if foot dragging becomes too onerous.

Please provide me some rationale, some analysis of how the Senate thinks it is going to be more able to duck the issue, indefinitely, with DADT suspended than with it not suspended... when the public outcry can be rallied at a moment's notice either way.

As for my supposed "straw man"... I was referring to the suspension of DADT by Obama. He either does it, or he doesn't do it. I said "you'd take the "more gutsy" move of doing nothing." With an issue where something like a suspension can either be made, or not made (which could also be described as doing nothing)... there's no gray area. On this issue, in terms of action, you are either advocating for a (action) or b (no action). I was pointing out that you clearly think that your opinion is more insightful than these 77 congress people, and that you'd have them do nothing. I also threw in an allusion to the OP's sentence "Neff called the move by congressional members "gutsy" "... and called your do nothing advocacy "more gutsy". That was not a strawman... that was a mocking contrast between the "gutsiness" of the call of the congress people for action, and your call for no action... which I mockingly called "more gutsy" since "gutsiness" is often associated with "correctness"... which you were obviously presuming for yourself without the need for an analysis.

Your strawman irrelevance addressed... I'll now ask you to tell me how Obama passing the buck of action (in the form of suspensions of investigations of DADT (pursuant to 10 USC 654)) off on Congress... is a better idea than Congress passing the buck of taking action (in the form of legislation) off on Obama. Keep in mind here... it is Congress that is currently drafting legislation regarding Energy, Healthcare, and Financial Regulations. Remember that? Obama doesn't want to legislate on those issues for Congress (quite rightly)... so why in the hells is it a bad idea for him to take action (pursuant to his powers under 10 USC 654) that will give Congress some more breathing room to finish up their legislation on Energy, Healthcare, Financial Regulations... before getting to DADT repeal/reform. Or are you really going to argue that all the military personnel who are losing their jobs and having their lives turned upside down are just the cost of getting a healthcare bill you like?... Are you saying that it is right and proper to sell them all out?...

[4lbs]

36. There's more than enough in the house to repeal DOMA and DADT. It's always been the Senate that

presents the main sticking point.

Any bill to overturn DOMA and DADT will be stuck in the Senate, with some Repukes possibly deciding to filibuster.

All the work and focus shouldn't be on what President Obama is or isn't doing, since he's already said he'd sign a repeal when it reaches his desk.

Put all the energies into getting the Senate to pass the bill and let it reach President Obama's desk.

[4lbs]

35. Are these 77 Senators or 77 House Reps?

77 House reps, no big deal.

There's actually quite a large amount of support for overturning DADT in the House.

The Senate is where the trouble is since any bill to fully overturn DOMA and DADT will be stuck in the Senate.

Now, if 77 Senators call on President Obama to stop DADT, then I'd stand up and say "WOW!!!!!"

[Divine Discontent]

38. Hear Hear! end it now!

sign my thread asking him to end it in this same forum!

I'm proud of these 77 Reps! All good people!

[mkultra]

43. 77 congresional members call on themselves to author a bill to stop DADT.

there, fixed it.

[hileeopnyn8d]

46. And four of them

are on the committee where the bill has been sitting since March, including the committee chairman.

What are they waiting on?