The White House’s official website, www.whitehouse.gov, now bears the name “President Barack Obama.” What a pleasant change that is. And it has a blog!
Perhaps more importantly, WhiteHouse.gov sets forth an aggressive gay rights agenda on the “civil rights” page:
- Expand hate crime statutes to include LGBT and pass the Matthew Shepard Act;
- Enact ENDA;
- Repeal DOMA and support “full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples…. and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions” (the bold text certainly seems to imply that, under this proposal, if you’re a gay couple legally married in MA, you’re married for federal purposes too);
- Repeal DADT;
- “[E]nsure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation”;
All excellent ideas. Some questions remain, of course. What is the timing on this, and how much of a priority is it? How quickly, for example, will the Joint Chiefs be asked to develop a plan for repealing DADT? Does he prefer the LGB, or the LGBT version of ENDA (or will he sign whatever Congress gives him)? And will “ensur[ing] adoption rights” include a federal statute that would override state-level adoption restrictions?
But the agenda is an excellent one (it also restates Obama’s opposition to a federal constitutional anti-marriage amendment). If he can pull it off, I’m guessing no one’s going to worry much about Rick Warren.
obama has stated that he supports inclusive enda. that is, an employment non-discrimination law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. i find that heartening. we very deeply need a t-inclusive enda. this is not only to protect transfolk, but many gays are fired not for actually being gay, but because they don’t hew to strict gender norms. so “t-inclusive” is really all-inclusive.
<
p>we need an omnibus bill. if you support civil equality, you will support each and every point above. so why try to pass them piecemeal, which will take forever?
Bingo.
Don’t hold your breath. It could result in self inflicted injury..
2. A repeal of DADT
3. Legally recognized relationships between same-sex couples (in other words, adding up those who support marriage equality and those who support civil unions equates to a majority).
<
p>Heck, there was a poll that came out in Utah that showed 63% of the state supported domestic partnerships. You really just don’t know what the heck you’re talking about, MCRD.
And I love your optimism Rye, but I think MCRD has a point (seemingly despite his best intentions). Getting those things done — each and every one of them — will be difficult to accomplish, and certainly won’t happen this week. It doesn’t mean that Obama doesn’t want to accomplish those things, or even work to get those things done. I believe he does, and he will.
<
p>But, it will still take time and effort, and we may not get all of those things done in the next four years. So, don’t hold your breath. Take a deep breath and keep on shouting for equality.
Obama could kill DADT within a month, if he really wanted to, but everything else… ya, that’ll take some time. But I still don’t see how ‘taking time’ becomes ‘self-inflicting wounds.’ The crazy conservatives who care about that issue aren’t going to vote for us anyway, by and large, and as I said, the bulk of America – especially those who vote Dem or consider voting Dem – support things like ENDA and legal rights for same-sex couples.
because frankly, it should be ditched, but…
<
p>It’s not an issue that there’s a large number of crazy conservatives who would push to have this move blocked, but rather that there is a disproportionate number of them in the military. It’s just a fact of life: liberals don’t join the armed forces in the same numbers conservatives do. This election was the first where the overseas vote shifted a bit for the democratic candidate.
<
p>I honestly think that is the sole reason DADT is still around. If the Israeli Army lets gays serve openly, then it’s good enough for us.
You got any numbers to back that up? I agree that officers tend to be conservative, but I’m not so sure that enlisted men skew conservative.
<
p>I’d also hypothesize that (a) officers participate in electoral politics at higher rates, and (b) that enlistees have a harder time voting absentee due to being stationed overseas, etc. I don’t know for sure though.
<
p>Got data?
but as you see from polls in 2004, it’s solid repub But changing.
<
p>I would actually be quite apt to see the accuracy in your comment that it’s primarily officers being the loud, active republicans in the military.
<
p>George did a great job killing Republican support in the military with this stupid war though.
but I’m not sure that the “solid repub” is much more than a single data point… after all, they point out that (a) most earlier studies were done on officers who went to military college [a distinct subset], and (b) it was taken 2-3 years after 9/11, which certainly gives a specific skew. Sure there’s always a skew to enlisting in the US mil, but the first attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor is certainly a pretty unique skew.
<
p>So, interesting and somewhat convincing, to be sure.
majority don’t care if queers serve openly. that’s been known for some time. and as for the rest, since when do soldiers give the commander in chief orders?
You hold your breath for 2 minutes, you black out, you fall down and hit your head.
<
p>I think those are the self-inflicted wounds to which he refers… simply meaning that yo may be disappointed with the length of time it takes to get those things done.
I think America supports a LGB enda, but not necessarily the T one.
<
p>Gosh, I was watching Dr. Phil the other day, and one “expert” he had one said that saying heterosexuality is natural is offensive. It was one of my few non-sports yelling at the TV moments. It’s just such an uncomfortable subject.
The public has been lagging on trans issues for numerous reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that they really just don’t understand it. I hope that changes soon – and think it will.
<
p>I’ve never watched “The Real World” before, but there’s a person on it (contestant?) that’s transgender – and I decided to watch the first few episodes of it this year for that very reason. MTV’s done a really great job with the portrayal, IMO, and deserves a lot of credit. A few more incidents like this and I think the public will support transgender issues soon enough.
I think there’s a certain level of naturality to homosexuality. Ryan, you’re gay. Just the way God made you.
<
p>Transexuality is something totally different. Whether or not one considers it to be or whether its hateful for me to say this or not, but it looks like the kind of mental illness that gays were viewed to have a while ago, and I don’t see that persona being shed. Even I don’t know if I buy it. Something about it is just so deranged to me.
<
p>Its creepy too. I see plenty of gay people in work and whatever, they are just like everyone else. But this guy came in and he had boobs but was wearing freakishly tight shorts and was sporting a package still, and it just was like…YUCK. Twofold for the half-gender situation and the other for pretty much showing off the jewels, which is confusing because I would expect him to be more apt to try and hide them til they are taken care of. /rant off.
<
p>I dunno..no amount of exposure to trans sexuality has dulled or made me more (I want to say tolerant, but its not like I’m intolerant).
i am mystified as to why people need to “know” what sex someone is. unless you are dating that person, who cares?
<
p>one thing to keep in mind – while people are transitioning, they may not be able to “pass” very well if at all as either gender. i’m actually happy to hear that your co-worker doesn’t feel ashamed to the point of having to cover themselves up. it is reminiscent of the latinas i see at my brother’s grocery store: no matter the spare tire count, they are wearing those tight midriff shirts because they have nothing to be ashamed of. we whitebreads could learn a lot about being comfortable in our own skins from people outside our tiny little cultural pockets.
But really, I’m extremely comfortable outside of what one would call my cultural norm. I’m a people person, I’m fine around thug gangsters, rich people, gays..I mean, heck, last summer I was at a party watching some guy put triple-stacked E in baggies to deal…The fact that trans make me uncomfortable is the exception. I can’t really think of any other group that makes me like that.
<
p>Good point though about the transitioning period. I guess if a transsexual was at one end of the deal or the other, I wouldn’t be any the wiser to it.
i’m not sure being comfortable around a variety of people is the same as learning from them, but in any case it’s nice to know that you’re not a honkey snob. 😀
i should also mention that not every transperson will be able to “pass” well even when they’ve transitioned all the way because they may have the bone structure or hairline of their former sex. so have extra compassion for people who respect themselves enough to face disgusted looks from people like you. they have a mighty courage.
<
p>also, not all transpeople have genital reconstruction surgery, or what we’re calling here “going all the way”. some people simply can never afford it, and some choose not to have it for their own reasons. again i say, so what? that’s their business. it doesn’t affect me whatsoever either way. all i know is that the more people there are in the world that are happy with themselves, the better the world is.
I don’t respect them any less than anyone else, but regardless, it creeps me out. I can’t really help it. I also can’t touch corduroy because it makes my skin crawl – something else I can’t really help.
<
p>My point is, is that my reaction isn’t all that uncommon regarding trassexuals, which is why I think there will be a harder time getting T legislation passed than GLB.
I had a college roommate who was transgender, female-to-male. You would never know in a million years. And you would forget about the whole trans issue within minutes of meeting him, if you even knew he was trans to begin with (and chances are, you wouldn’t). Just like with gay people, some people who are trans are more obvious than others. But who cares? If you don’t find it sexually appealing, don’t sleep with that person. LOL.
<
p>The fact is that everyone’s different – that’s natural. Our differences are a part of our nature. Our brains work in different ways. Unfortunately, our brains don’t always match our bodies – which has led to some people being trapped in the wrong gender. They’re not deranged or crazy – they represent neither a threat to you nor anyone else. The fact that they’re willing to transition should be something we respect and applaud, not try to persecute against or view as ‘creepy.’
<
p>You may think “oh, well, Ryan’s just a super liberal,” but keep in mind that I was no more exposed to trans issues than you are about two years ago. Now I’m friends with many. When I moved in with that roommate, I had never known someone who was transgender in my whole life, at least personally – and I certainly carried with me preconceived notions, only to realize that he was a perfectly normal person who had struggled and come out better for it. I bet you would have liked him – would have had some interesting religious conversations (both his parents were reverends).
<
p>I really suggest watching that episode of Real World, Joe. It would probably be the most exposure to someone who’s transgender you’ve had, beyond seeing someone who happened to be trans, and you’d get to understand a little bit about what some who are transgender have to deal with. Perhaps, after that, you may not feel so creeped out next time you bump into someone you suspect is trans in real life.
about what sex one is, is that it limits who one can reproduce with. Or, am I wrong?
i think joining the lgb’s has perhaps hurt as much as helped the t’s. it’s helped them in that they have our much larger numbers behind them when we work together. lgbt people often are discriminated against for “incorrect” gender presentation (“feminine” males, “masculine” females, etc), and so it makes sense for us to pool our resources and fight together for legislation that protects all of us from gender-based discrimination.
<
p>but on the other hand, it may have hurt t’s to join lgb’s because most people see transgenderism as a medical condition. people in general are more sympathetic to someone with a medical condition than with people who they think have “chosen a sinful lifestyle”. it may have been difficult getting the t non-discrimination bill rolling in mass, but t’s have done well in other polities passing similar t-only legislation.
<
p>it is hard to know where the truth lies between the two points i’ve just made. i’m sure it varies locationally and temporally. but i personally am glad that we lgbt’s have banded together and will never dump the t’s for lgb-only expediency so long as t’s want to be in the acronym. i think that we are, on balance, more of a strength to each other than handicap. and i think that congress heard the message that lgbt’s will stand or fall together in the most recent enda debates. in fact, lgb and lgbt organizations spoke with unanimity that we refuse to leave the t’s behind.
because naturally, I can only speak for myself, but I’ve never really been phased by homosexuals who sport different gender presentation. Sometimes the short haired butchy dykes are actually pretty cute if they put it together right. However, I’m still uncomfortable around the T.
<
p>I’m sure that GLBT won’t leave the T behind, but I think legislators who write the laws may do just that.
barney frank did attempt to do that in this last session of congress. and he learned in no uncertain terms that that was not acceptable. legislators, as we all know, are too often prone to doing what is easiest at the expense of what is right.
<
p>i have to agree with you on cute butchy dykes. 🙂
<
p>regarding being comfortable with the t’s, i’ve always wanted to do a survey on comfort level based on sex. i have a theory that women are more comfortable/understanding of t’s than men. few of us women know what it’s like to feel like we’re in the wrong body, but we do know what it’s like to be limited by society because of our sex. any woman who has lived vicariously through the exploits and accomplishments of men who can roam freely without care know what i’m talking about. i know men get stymied in their plans too, but rarely for the simple fact of being men. anyway, just a theory.
<
p>I’m not so sure about your claim about “most people.” I think that most people think that transgendered people are fags who get cosmetic surgery.
as you describe. but gender identity dysphoria is still in the medical books, so t’s have the medical establishment behind them when it comes time to lobby the legislature.
… of “heterosexuality is natural” is that non-heterosexuality is unnatural. Much much much much more clear given the person in question who said it.
<
p>Naahhhh… your right. Can’t imagine anyone being told that they are unnatural being offensive at all.
<
p>I can totally get that to many (even most?) it wouldn’t look like an offensive thing to say,… until you take a moment to think about it.
being gay, like blue eyes, is relatively uncommon but just as normal.
is factually incorrect. It’s probably one of the most natural things that a great many humans are still doing. I still don’t think it’s offensive. If someone is going to assume one is implying that homosexuality is unnatural by stating that heterosexuality is natural, one is saying that the basis of the evolution of complex creatures worldwide — sexual reproduction — is offensive.
<
p>Basically, I don’t like how we have become so politically correct, we can’t even state a fact of life such as “hetersexuality is natural” without someone getting offended.
did you expect reasonable dialog? i thought the prerequisite for being on such shows was the willingness and ability to make inflammatory and outrageous statements.
<
p>heterosexuality IS NORMAL and COMMON.
homosexuality IS NORMAL and LESS COMMON.
bisexuality IS NORMAL and LESS COMMON.
<
p>feel better?
the dialogue was pretty good on this one. He had on both positions and frankly, the ‘homosexuality is unnatural’ camp got trounced.
Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to all Creation
<
p>Heterosexual reproduction? Ha! It turns out that in nature we’ve got homosexuals, BSDM, cross-dressers, masturbaters, using genitals as weapons, cannibalism, sex changes, and more.
<
p>Is there lots of “traditional” heterosexual sex in nature? To be sure. Is there lots of other kinds of sex in nature? Yeah — and every single kind of socially deviant behavior you can think of is also happening among one or more “lower” life forms.
<
p>Just sayin’.
Hi, waiter? Donner, party of 33.
… I get that it doesn’t seem like it would be offensive at first, until you think of the implication. Certainly from a venn diagram point of view, it’s not offensive at all. But lets be honest here, neither the people who were hearing it nor the people who were saying it, were thinking in those terms. If you don’t take the implication in what was said, then I pronounce you a member of a tiny minority. For everyone else, including the people who said it, the implication is there, and is offensive.
I don’t think the behaviorist who was talking meant it in that fashion either, since he was saying that the parents should be engaging their children in the activities normally engaged by the opposite gender, like telling the dad to play with the barbies with his son.
… if you’re going to insist on symbolic logic, stating the assertion while simultaneously not wishing to assert the implication is a meaningless statement. It’s practically stating a tautology, signifying nothing in particular. Stating it with the implication, however, is an assertion with meaning.
Which is why I found the lady calling his word offensive so ridiculous.
… given the title of the guy’s book is “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality”.
Because I remember this guy seeming like he was on the pro-side of the issue, unless I did some serious checking-out during the show.
Here is Nicolosi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>Here is another clip from the same show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>These are the only two clips I could find from that show. Neither of them had the quote, but I’m pretty sure it was form Nicolosi. Any mention that “heterosexuality is natural” from that guy, in that context, clearly carries the implication.
Hm…I really want to see that part of the episode I recall.
… it is clear that (if it’s him) the context shows that his assertion carried with it the implication. Actually, I’d go further and say that within the context of the whole show, anyone making the assertion carries the implication with it.
are you talking about the person on dr phil, or rick warren saying during the inaugural
territorial pissing incidentprayer, “Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united…[by] our commitment to freedom and justice for all.”“sexuality is natural.”
<
p>We are sexual beings, after all. Well, most of us anyway. Always exceptions. And that’s natural too. LOL.
I will fight til the day I die that nonsexuality is NOT natural.
It only goes against nature if it’s something you, yourself, do not have any interest in doing, yet are forced to do it anyway. That’s why I don’t sleep with women and you don’t have sleep with men.
<
p>My only effort here is to try to get you to accept the fact that other people have brains that work in different ways – and, in the vast majority of cases, there’s nothing wrong with that. There are gay people. Straight people. Bisexual people. There are people who consider themselves fluid, attracted to the person, not the sex. Or people who are attracted to pretty much anyone or anything. And, yes, even people who aren’t sexually attracted to anyone. So long as it doesn’t do any harm and it’s consenting adults we’re talking about, it shouldn’t matter.
That would be a sad state, constantly thwarted by logic.
If you’re “into being unnatural” then that’s natural for you. For example, some people, err… like it rough. It still may physically hurt, but if they like it, that’s natural to them. I find it shocking what some people will do, but if they like it, they’re consenting, and they’re doing no permanent physical harm to each other, what should I care? I just don’t do those things. In case you’re not getting the theme of the day – it’s that our brains work differently, all of us. That should never be a problem, so long as we’re amongst consenting adults.
they don’t want anyone telling them that what they like is “natural”, that would be a condescending insult, like telling a punk teenager they’re “typical” or “ordinary”. Some people go to great lengths to be unnatural. It’s similar to how some people even hate satisfaction or pleasure. Anhedonia, I think it’s called. They’re only happy when they’re not.
<
p>As far as caring about what people do, I think we should. People should do what they should do, and that means we have to care what people do. That’s what gives meaning meaning. I think people are tragically unmoored from meaning these days, because no one cares what anyone does, no one feels any sense of being good because they have done what they were expected to. Everyone is just told to be happy, instead of being good and doing what they should.
This statement implies that we should look meaning by being judged by others. Social pressure is a reality, of course, but to say or imply that it is the source of or a necessary condition for meaning is wildly of the mark.
I don’t care what they do in bed. I care if they’re feeling hopeless and would like to improve their lives. I care if they’re sick. I would love this country to set up programs to help people feel better, become physically fit, have good health care. Or get to work quicker. Or find a new job. Or get education. Etc. etc. etc. I just don’t care what people do in bed. Neither should you.
the blog first! grin
<
p>To MCRD: the nation is moving into the right direction. So don’t be so sure anything in this agenda would injure anyone except maybe with those who wouldn’t ever vote for Dems anyway.
Obama can end, or at least effectively end, DADT through executive order. I’m willing to wade through the legislative waters, but if the legislature decides to stall this for the year, Obama ought to do the right thing and use his executive powers. That’s one issue, when it comes to civil equality for glbt people, that Obama doesn’t have to depend on the legislative branch.
…if that’s the case why did Clinton trip over this so badly? He said he was going to issue an order to allow gays to serve openly, then Congress enacted DADT and he caved. Sounds to me that President gives an order and that’s it; just like Truman integrated the service racially.
Clinton had the authority to eliminate the exclusion on gays serving. He tried to do it, but the military (including the top brass) wasn’t ready, and they rebelled. Then, as a “compromise,” Congress enacted and Clinton signed DADT.
<
p>Unfortunately, now that it’s a statute, Obama can’t get rid of it on his own. Congress has to repeal it. I think they will — the policy has failed miserably, and people are a lot more comfortable with the notion of gay people serving than they were 16 years ago.
Link
but even if Obama can’t completely kill it through executive order (and I’ve been told by others that he could, so there’s some speculation over that), he can make orders to the effect that would prevent it from being enforced. There are thousands of laws on the books that aren’t enforced ever, including new ones. May as well not enforce this bad law, too, until we can fully repeal it.
that’s probably true. But it would be much better, IMHO, to kill it dead. Repeal the damn thing and be done with it. You don’t want that statute hanging around on the books, only to come back to life like some horror flick zombie.
but we may not have that choice
There’s a strongly Democratic Senate and House right now — and if history is any guide, the majorities will be somewhat less in two years. Now is the best possible time to repeal the statute. Obama can probably effectively stop the discharges by grinding the proceedings to a halt, which would be a good thing and I would not be at all surprised if he did so. But it’s not enough. As long as the policy itself remains on the books, it remains the official, legal position of the United States that openly gay people cannot serve in the military — and it remains possible for the discharges to crank up again under a different c-in-c.
equal rights. The dc establishment Democrats have given signals that they already want to push DADT away for the year. They’ll surely do the same next year, should we let them, because it’ll be an election year. If we lose one House seat in that election year, it’ll be used as an excuse to impede every glbt bill on civil rights.
<
p>David, I think you’re an exceptionally bright mind and great person, but your lack of willingness to do what is necessary is something that frequently frustrates me. We can’t keep bringing knives to gunfights, even if that means we have to occasionally bend and improvise. I applaud people who are willing to stand for their principals, even if that means sound policy sometimes withers and dies, but you already have your equal protection under the law. It’s different for you. If you didn’t, I think your opinions on using other, slightly less idealistic options to accomplish goals would be different.
<
p>Just one correction on your post: It’s highly unlikely we’ll lose Senate seats in two years. In fact, it’s quite likely that we gain at least another 2-3 or more. There are far more Republican seats up for grabs – especially weak Republican seats. Furthermore, a very large number of Republicans have already said they’d retire in two years. So we should be rolling into these next two years full steam ahead, with very little to be scared about.
I’m not so sure. The question is: does compromise on civil rights policy (a) help build consensus toward acceptance, or (b) undermine true equality?
<
p>If DADT hadn’t been enacted at all, would we be closer to sexuality-based equality in society, farther from it, or at exactly the same place? Is it possible that DADT has allowed people to come to terms with the idea that homosexuals are in the military and there wasn’t a collapse of morale or fighting ability because of it… and therefore that they’ll be willing to drop DADT and be as indifferent about sexuality as they are about race?
<
p>I’m an incremental kind of guy, so my viewpoint tends to be that incremental progress helps people get used to the idea, helping to make the next step in the journey. But that’s my bias — incremental change. It’s not obvious to me if getting a little in the short term delays or accelerates getting to the true finish line.
See link above. DADT is a statute that Congress has to repeal.
<
p>Unless we’re going to go down the old “Commander in Chief doesn’t have to follow congressional statutes he doesn’t like” route. And I’m not sure that’s such a great idea.
doesn’t he indeed have the freedom to ignore rules congress might place on the military? i thought congress’s only control of the military was the budget and declaration of war (which they have proven not to really need).
… I think it’s Congress’ power to put raise and maintain the military, but the Commander in Chief leads it. As such, DADT is (at least partially) encompassed in Congress’ power in that it is a rule that defines who can be ‘raised’ into the military and who can’t stay in. It could be argued that it also is also partially encompassed in the Commander in Chief powers in that it defines rules under which dismissal (a presumably CIC power) must happen.
No. That’s exactly what Bush was trying to do with his signing statements. Most constitutional scholars saw it as an illegitimate power grab.
<
p>Indeed, the Constitution expressly grants Congress the authority “To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” It’s admittedly a somewhat gray area, since there are probably limits to what Congress can do. But Congress has enacted an enormous number of statutes regulating the military, most of which are fairly ordinary, and I don’t know of any serious, non-wingnutty argument that the president can simply ignore them.
this is an area i’ve never given much thought to before.
The Supreme Court has held that the President’s Article II power as Commander in Chief does not extend to seizing private steel mills or ignoring statutorily created tribunals when prosecuting enemy combatants, but I think there is a credible constitutional argument that the President’s Article II powers as Commander in Chief prevent the level of micromanagement as to qualifications to serve in the military that is present in the DADT statute. The intersection and overlap between the President’s Article II Commander in Chief power and Congress’ Article I power to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” is unclear enough that I think it’s reasonable for President Obama to take the position that Congress reached beyond its constitutional power when it passed the DADT statute.
…on Congress’ Article I power to “raise and support armies” (separate from their power to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces”)?
<
p>Incidentally, while perusing the constitution I was struck with a (tangential) question: has Congress ever issued an actual Letter of Marque?
necessarily occurs before the President can command the armies and navies, so Congress can impose restrictions on who can join. Interesting argument. But DADT also acts to expel homosexuals from the military, and determining what actions constitute grounds for dismissal from the military seems to be more within the purview of the Commanderof the military.
<
p>A Letter of Marque essentially creates a government approved pirate. I don’t know when Congress last issued one, but after September 11 Ron Paul urged the Congress to issue Letters of Marque against Osama Bin Laden. He’s nothing if not faithful to the Constitution.
But I think quite an aggressive one, and one that plays right into the Bush/Cheney view of executive power. There are reasons that go way beyond DADT why I would prefer that Obama not take that approach.
I think that DADT has outlived any possible usefulness and should be gotten rid of. President Obama can make a credible argument that it is within his constitutional power to ignore the DADT statute. And I’m not sure who would have standing to challenge it’s excision anyway. I say go for it.
<
p>On a macro level, I understand the argument that it’s bad precedent to allow an Executive to increase the power of the Executive branch. But I’m also concerned about the expansion of the power of the legislative branch that has been ongoing for the better part of a century. Needless creation of federal crimes for political purposes (Morrison, Raich), unfunded mandates imposed on states using dubious commerce clause arguments (imposing background check requirements on CLEOs), isolating portions of executive power from the unitary executive using independent entities more answerable to Congress than the President (special prosecutor Ken Starr) overturning Supreme Court constitutional decisions for political purposes (partial birth abortion ban), overturning state judicial decisions for political purposes (Terri Schiavo). Congress is clearly not shy about agressively asserting it’s power, and has been doing so for decades. I’m OK with other branches of government fighting back against the expansion of Legislative power when they have a credible argument.
would be for Obama simply to instruct the JAG (or whoever handles the expulsions) to suspend all ongoing proceedings pending some sort of high-level review which would take a long time — oh, I’m thinking 4-8 years. That is (almost) certainly a legitimate exercise of c-in-c power, and doesn’t raise any of these thorny issues, while accomplishing the same goal. And I still think the best route is just to repeal the statute.
in practical terms, when a President doesn’t like a statute he should (1) try to get it changed and (2) use his constitutional powers to minimize it’s effects before he (3) launches a credible yet uncertain constitutional attack on it.
Here is an excerpt from Leonard Link’s blog. Some great ideas.