Re: Don't ask don't tell, Isn't the fact that all of the GOP Senate members voted to uphold a law that has been declared unconstitutional a slap at the Constitution?

What? The GOP supports an unconstitutional law? I’m shocked that anyone would suggest such hogwash. ~~~~~~~~

Most of the GOP does not believe that it is unconstitutional.

@marinelife So the GOP is more adapt at the law than a judge?

No, I am not saying that they are right. Only that they believe the Constitution is open to interpretation and the judge’s interpretation is wrong.

@marinelife How are we supposed to get an opinionated debate going if you pour logic and facts over this?

@Seek_Kolinahr Said with the inflection of of Renault in Cassablance. Let’s all remember what comes right after that expression of shock:

Rick: “How can you close me up? On what grounds?”

Renault: “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!””

Croupier: “Your winnings, Sir.”

Renault: “Oh, thank you very much.”

You just have to understand that being a Constitutionalist in GOP terms means you pull in your winnings when the Constitution consists mainly of the part about States’ Rights and the thingy about Guns being OK!

@ETpro You read me well. ^_^

The Congress has the responsibility for interpreting the Constitution just like any judge on the federal circuit. The only time something is unconstitutional as the “supreme law of the land” is when it is deemed so by the Supreme Court, or when behavior that was previously not covered by the Constitution is added to it through the amendment process. Federal legislative law is the law of the land only as long as it meets the requirements of the constitution and is not declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Further, the Congress can remove certain questions from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Military personnel are subject to a separate court system already, so the military already comes under a special legal jurisdictional umbrella, and is an area that legally (and rightly so, considering that Congress declares war) within the special purvey of the Congress.

So it’s perfectly (and necessarily) within Congress’s right to disagree with the courts on this matter. And it’s not undermining the Constitution until the Supreme Court has made a ruling.

Let’s cut to the chase. This is about gay rights, and everything in the US about gay rights immediately brings up thoughts of gay sex. The GOP is dead set against the idea that homosexuality between consenting adults is right in any form even though the US Supreme Court ruled six to three in Lawrence vs. Texas that it was okay.

The GOP wants the government to stay out of the way of big business so that it can rack up inordinate profits at the expense of the country. The GOP wants the government to stay out of the health care industry so that only the richest can afford it. The GOP wants the government to stay out of the pocketbooks of the richest citizens whether it drives up the budget deficit or not.

But when it comes to what I do in my bedroom, because I’m gay, then the GOP is all over it. They simply believe that what I’m doing is wrong. They don’t want LGBT people to have equality in the bedroom, in business, in adoption, in foster care, in marriage, in serving our country, in anything.

@hawaii_jake

I agree with you. That’s why it’s important for everyone who finds the policy objectionable, when talking with a supporter, make sure that the person understands that it is a SOLDIER’S RIGHTS issues. We do not want to allow gays access to the military – we know for a fact that there are gays in the military currently. What we want to do is protect those individuals, who have fought and risked their lives for their country, from having the benefits that they expected to see from such sacrifice taken away from them.

Would you say that someone who has been out in Iraq, on an extended tour, awarded a purple heart, should be fired because of something in their personal lives?

@iamthemob Can you clarify what you meant by“We do not want to allow gays access to the military”

I mean that the fear is generally attached to the fact that this will mean gays will have free access to the military and will be increasingly out when in the military. DADT does not prevent gay men and women from military service. It only means that they have to keep a lid on it, keep secrets from their fellow service members, which does nothing in the end for unit morale. The idea that gays will flood the military and gay it up in the barracks is a little ridiculous – it’s not one of those environments. The discipline inherent in the image of the military dictates that behavior will not change.

Therefore, this doesn’t do anything in terms of preventing certain behavior that isn’t already controlled for by the rules and regulation already. So, that’s not the agenda of protests against the bill.

Thanks for asking for the clarification – the way that I phrased it initially definitely sounds more brash than I intended.

Didn’t you know that the entire Bill of Rights and constitution is revoked if the religious right thinks what you’re doing is wrong, or the GOP doesn’t agree?

How do you think we passed the Patriot Act?

But it isn’t all the way unconstitutional until Anthony Kennedy rules on it. That isn’t likely to happen for a while, since the Obama administration does not have to appeal the decision. The Republicans are hoping they can keep this in limbo until they get one of theirs in office.

@IchtheosaurusRex

You bring up a good point (and in an AWESOME way – I feel like I’m crushing on you for the Kennedy swing vote reference) – but it’s only all the way unconstitutional in the district or circuit where the ruling took place. As people challenge it in other circuits, the court may look to the circuit where the ruling of unconstitutionality happened as persuasive. If the court finds that the DADT holds as constitutional, then the complaining party can take it up the chain and there’s no need to wait for the administration to appeal.

So, there are three main possibilities: (1) the circuits will unanimously, in their own time, resolve that it’s unconstitutional, and then we’ll have to see what happens with the Supreme Court then (highly unlikely); (2) a circuit will define it as unconstitutional and it will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court will not hear certiori (highly unlikely); and (3) a circuit court will define it as unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will hear certiori and make a decision on the constitutionality of the provision.

Of course, I’m betting that this all will be decided in the legislative or executive branches before then….

(sigh) I was so disappointed.

We should have an all gay army! and we take prisoners!!! (gc)

Well the Spartans were notoriously homo and bi sexual, and they were the most bad ass warriors in the history of man kind (see or read 300). So I frankly don’t see the problem.

@iamthemob I really like that emphasis on it. Thos soldiers who have served with honor should not be punished for it just to protect someone else’s feelings of homophobia.