Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Aren't signing statements issued with the legislation when the president signs the bill? That is not the situation here, regardless of the validity of such statements. Also, federal prosecutors do not consult with the president when they move to enforce the law. Just as Obama said he would not pursue medical marijuana cases, but the prosecutors are still vigorously enforcing the law. I'm not familiar with how these cases are handled in the military or whether they would follow his guidance on this issue.
A statement such as you suggest, might actually be a just cause for impeachment, if prosecutors followed his direction.
Judging from recent polls, a bill to allow gays to openly serve might well be successful. But I don't think the president can do it by fiat.
You seem awfully sure about the usefulness of signing statements. My brief review of their status would indicate they have no legal validity whatsoever, if challenged. If and when it happens, we may find out. I think it would be the weakest way to accomplish the desired goal. A congressional act would be much neater, and allow the conservative backlash to be diluted.
United States
You Americans are crazy, a male soldier can get a medal for killing a man, and a discharge for loving one.
Not if it is the same man.
Not even if he's an enemy soldier and you love him to death?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt is not just America, that is true. But the examples you suspect to have similar rules are not correct:
Canada: As of 1992, lesbians, gays and bisexuals are allowed to openly serve in the military.
U: The United Kingdom's policy is to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, and discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden.
Australia: The Commonwealth of Australia policies are to allow gay men and lesbian to serve openly.
My source: Wikipedia
I'd like to think our military was better than that.
I would like to know how some people think this change in policy can put gays in the military in danger?
This comment was deleted.
[6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIsn't the ban currently written into federal law? How can the president change it by decree?
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyAren't signing statements issued with the legislation when the president signs the bill? That is not the situation here, regardless of the validity of such statements. Also, federal prosecutors do not consult with the president when they move to enforce the law. Just as Obama said he would not pursue medical marijuana cases, but the prosecutors are still vigorously enforcing the law. I'm not familiar with how these cases are handled in the military or whether they would follow his guidance on this issue.
A statement such as you suggest, might actually be a just cause for impeachment, if prosecutors followed his direction.
Judging from recent polls, a bill to allow gays to openly serve might well be successful. But I don't think the president can do it by fiat.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou seem awfully sure about the usefulness of signing statements. My brief review of their status would indicate they have no legal validity whatsoever, if challenged. If and when it happens, we may find out. I think it would be the weakest way to accomplish the desired goal. A congressional act would be much neater, and allow the conservative backlash to be diluted.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply