A perfect example of a President making a promise during an election that they needed Congress to help keep was when Obama campaigned in the 2008 election on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). This policy was originally passed during the Clinton administration, and essentially states that a homosexual person may serve in the military, as long as they are not open about their sexuality. With the issue of legal gay marriage becoming more prominent, the overt discrimination in DADT became a more prominent issue as well. The debate is heated, and also shows the President’s dependence on Congress.
During MTV’s recent broadcast “Conversation with the President,” Obama answers a question from a woman asking why he does not end the law with an executive order, as Truman had done to desegregate the military in 1948. He also points out that in the law, it is specifically written that the president cannot use an Executive order to repeal it, and he also tells the woman that “it will end on my watch.”
The video of this exchange can be found here.
Why would Obama walk around saying that it will be repealed when he honestly has no power on this one? This is interesting, because in his previous state of the Union Address, he acknowledges that he is going to work with Congress. But he doesn’t say that he is dependent on them.
During the recent MTV town hall meeting, he states that the Senate could lift the restriction on the Executive Order so he could issue it. Enter John McCain. All it takes for Obama to look like a stagnant leader and a like President who is not producing the promised drastic change is a measly filibuster. Now Obama has to wait until McCain is no longer willing to filibuster the repeal of the policy to even make headway. Since Obama can’t repeal it, McCain and others against the repeal are refusing to repeal it, the only avenue left at this point for repeal is the court system.
On October 12, 2010, a federal judge in California ruled to stop the enforcement of DADT. The Obama administration has appealed this ruling, which can easily seem contradictory. But since this is a very complicated situation, one has to think critically about the decision. For a decision to really be in effect for the entire country, it makes sense that the Supreme Court should make the decision to suspend enforcement of the policy.
To read one soldier’s story of what it is like to serve in the military while gay, click here
2 comments:
While I believe this is an important issue and one that needs to be addressed it seems that the filibuster is only being used to try and demonstrate any inadequacy in the current administration. In all actuality how could it possibly hurt the military to not have DADT still in place? we should move on and simply allow homosexuals to serve in the military
Post a Comment