Why dadt is unconstitutional

Now the rules have changed. So tomorrow the courts will decide that DADT is not unconstitutional since the constitution is living and changes through time. So today it means one thing, tomorrow something else. It defeats the purpose of having freedom in the first place when it can only come from the consent of a supposed majority. Constitutional rights are superseded by the UCMJ for members of the military. This is another very long-standing legal principle due to the impossibility of maintaining a standing army when its members are entitled to some quite liberal constitutional protections.

You may be happy with the ruling. I would would respectfully suggest that judicial activism robs you of far more important rights than any you think you are gaining. Please get back to me when you learn the difference between self governance representative democracy and anarchy. Until then, it appears I would be wasting my time. But suffice it to say, no, only an idiot believes there is freedom in the military. The problem with the courts interferring is a The military is already an institution where you hang up several of your rights when you volunteer to enlist, and b The UCMJ is the power of the Executive as CnC, not the courts.

Try writing an op ed accusing President Obama of treason as a soldier. Please make sure you can access the site from Levenworth to tell us how that went.

Could you expound on that? And while no recent definitive study has shown either damage or none to moral and welfare, they also declare to know that. I believe our recent increases in public support, which the gay civil rights movement regularly and vehemently discounts, will be damaged.

The shotgun approach to legislative, judicial and populace activism wreaks more of weakness of purpose and point than much else. I must disagree with this. Military members do have the right to Due Process. AND Equal Protection. The difference is that those rights are applied to military members through the military justice system, which operates under the statutory scheme of the UCMJ, as lawfully constitutionally created by Congress. One does not give up fundamental Constitutional rights when one joins the military.

But those rights can and are exercised under rules, regulations, and legal processes which are usually more restrictive than those of the general citizenry. First and Fifth Amendment violations? I might understand basing it on the 14th Amendment, drawing from Lawrence, but not these two. If this helps spur the Senate to finally take action and pass DADT repeal that would be good at least.

Perhaps the best outcome would be for the Administration to appeal while at the same time pushing the Senate to pass repeal, have the brass give their okay in the Spring so DADT becomes history and make the whole case moot.

I am sick and tired of hearing about these few who refuse or who feel the need to change a military policy. The military has no place for individuals and yet these individuals complain only to politicians and judges. We have the civilian population dictating to the military world policy and this from civilians who have never worn a uniform. Sure there are a selected few that got caught in the crossfire and served but left because they too cannot conform to military standards.

One standard is necessary to keep military readiness. And why would anyone try to change a policy that most service members agree upon.

Remember Prop 8, that is where Californians voted to define the legalities of marriage? It was solely won on its merits and voted to recognize marriage between a male and female.

Now they are mixing in military policy. In this case a group of gay and lesbians asked an unelected judge to change policy and decree against a longstanding national policy. Phillips also indicated that she will issue a permanent injunction barring the Department of Defense from carrying out further discharges. Another judge who feels that maybe her pond Riverside, CA is too small? Someone needs to pull Phillips aside and tell her that there is no constitutional right to serve in the military, gay, straight, or otherwise.

The problem according to many legal experts is the due process by which a soldier or military service member is forced to separate. If a President wants to overturn it, it is within his right but a judge creating legislation out of personal feeling is wrong. Doing away with the DADT does not change other regulations prohibiting homosexual activity.

Therefore more homosexual may in up getting boot out of the military than before. Wayne raises a good point. I continue to be depressed to observe political compromises being rejected by the courts, when I think compromise is usually the best solution.

The court turns around and quotes Obama as if his opinion is the last word. Gay people can and do go through long periods, such as a military deployment, without any sexual activity at all…you know, just like straight people.

Prohibit homosexual activity. Prohibit all sexual activity. Are you willing to compromise equal justice under the law for yourself? For your family? Or is that just something gays should have to do? Therefore her weak argument that relies on the first and fifth amendments will have to rely solely on the Fifth Amendment.

SCOTUS has already ruled the military is a special case and constitutional rights are not apply to their members in the same way as the general public. For example freedom of speech is limited in many ways including not disclosing classified materials, speaking ill of the President and members of Congress, and others.

We will continue that fight to create a lasting and durable policy that discrimination has no place in our armed forces. On another front in the battle for repeal, the Log Cabin Republicans successfully argued in front of a federal district judge that DADT is unconstitutional. Opponents of open service are out of arguments. They may have won the day through procedural maneuvering on the Senate floor this week, but even they are facing the very real fact that the days of this failed and discriminatory law are numbered.

So what can be done to keep equality moving forward? The facts gathered in the case add to the ever-growing list of evidence illustrating that Congress lacked even a rational basis for enacting DADT. The facts are on our side.