The Denver Post’s Michael Riley finds Sen. Mark Udall’s pushing President Obama on the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” affecting gays in the military to be no big deal:
U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D – Colo.) sent a letter today to Barack Obama asking him to push for a quick response from the military’s highest commander on reversing the long-standing ban on gays in the military.It’s hardly a bold move. Udall is asking Obama to ask Admiral Michael Mullen to hurry and get back with an opinion on reversing the ban. Still, it is consistent with Udall’s earlier advocacy on the issue and a sign he wants to continue to push the issue in his new job as senator. (As a member of the House of Representatives, Udall twice co-sponsored a bill requiring repeal of the current policy, known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.)
Democrats are getting increasingly impatient with Obama’s slow pace on his promise to reverse the ban, but few seem willing to openly confront the president over the issue. Even Rep. Jared Polis (D-Boulder), who is openly gay and who has brought up the issue privately with Obama, has yet to publically call the president out.
We’d say it’s worth noting for a Senator frequently lumped in with the loathed “Conservadems,” and as a former sponsor of the House bill to repeal, it certainly is “consistent.” And if Udall is making more noise than the First Openly Gay Man Ever Elected to Congress™, we’d call that bold enough.
President Obama can suspend enforcement of the DADT by using his powers as C&C tomorrow until the Congress can craft a new conduct policy that reflects the composition of the military (hetero sexual conduct needs some revisions too) and the needs of the US.
There will be some balking, but soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines follow orders.
Can the prez suspend statutes?
The president can suspend enforcing the statute while Congress is weighing its repeal. He can’t overturn the statute, but there are all kinds of laws the executive branch can enforce more or less vigorously.
…including laws enacted by Congress. It seems odd to effectively nullify a law by refusing to enforce it, unless the prez thought the law violated the constitution or something (but Obama is defending the constitutionality of DADT in court, right?).
Doesn’t a power of selective nullification put the prez “above the law” and all that jazz? (allowing him to ignore those laws he doesn’t like, etc.) What about campaign finance laws, environmental laws, laws forbidding financial assistance to the Contras? Can the prez suspend enforcement of those if he doesn’t like them? I’m not trying to be snarky, really!, but I wonder about the limits of this suspension power?
He can also impose rules, including that it be enforced as written. Because if it were, nobody would have been discharged.
Nearly all of the discharges are a result of some third-party “telling” or because of witch hunts. That was never the intent of the law–in fact, it’s the opposite of its intent.
I can’t agree with you.
President’s don’t and shouldn’t have the authority to override or suspend congressional orders. If the law is unconstitutional, then it needs to be challenged. It’s not in the presidents prerogative to just ignore it, though.
We’ll get Hate Crimes and ENDA passed in the next 6 months. Would we really want President Palin (yikes) or President Huckabee (double yikes) to feel empowered to suspend federal hate crimes prosecutions through executive order?
I don’t think so.
Haven’t immigration laws been ignored by our presidents? How can they legally turn a blind eye? What am I missing?
The issues just aren’t controversial, so are never challenged.
Boulder Liberal to Conservadem in less than one year. Wonder who is more out of breath. Him or the media. This is indeed a cheap dis.
the FOGMEEC has been carrying plenty of weight on this, and other LGBT issues. Udall isn’t making any more noise than Polis has been.
Udall is in the Senate in a swing state that voted against marriage equity when it was last on the ballot.
That takes guts.
To be clear I am not knocking Jared and the fact that his orientation was a non issue in the CD2 was great.
I was commenting on Pols’ remark in the diary, that Udall is making more noise than Polis. Not sure that’s a fair swipe.
That said, I agree that Polis is not weak on LGBT issues. But Udall is arguably taking a riskier stand, for the reasons Danny brought up.