Gay rights (possible) turn around.

[Samuel]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_ ... y_benefits

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, under growing criticism for not seeking to end the ban on openly gay men and women in the military, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Obama plans to announce his decision on Wednesday in the Oval Office, a White House official said Tuesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president hadn't yet signed the presidential memorandum.

The official said Obama would release more details on Wednesday.

The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that in recent weeks has grown frustrated with the White House's slow movement on their priorities.

Several powerful gay fundraisers withdrew their support from a June 25 Democratic National Committee event where Vice President Joe Biden is expected to speak. Their exit came in response to a June 12 Justice Department brief that defended the Defense of Marriage Act, a prime target for gay and lesbian criticism. Justice lawyers argued that the law allowed states to reject marriages performed in other states or countries that defy their own standards.

Grumbling beats assuming the man has a plan. We will see tomorrow if anything comes of this.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's a small reprieve for Obama facing the anger of most LGBT rights groups. But it's not nearly enough for him to sustain their allegiance.

[Havok]

""All men are created equal..."
Our constitution, is very clear on this idea. As President of the United States, I hereby proclaim that all discriminatory laws, regulations and policies, are unconstitutional and illegal and shall be stricken down throughout the land.
I am the President of the United States and if you disagree with this then you are not an American, nor a patriot and can go fuck yourself."

Ok... so maybe a little more eloquent, but one day, hopefully before I die, I will hear that.

[Samuel]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 5638.story

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- Faced with growing anger among gay and lesbian supporters, President Obama is expected tonight to extend healthcare and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

His action is a significant advance for gay rights and comes days after the Obama administration sparked outrage by filing a legal brief defending the law forbidding federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Obama opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act during his presidential campaign.

It was not immediately clear whether Obama's latest decision would mollify his critics. Some offered only grudging support Tuesday night after learning of the president's intentions.

"This is a good thing for the small percentage of . . . people that work for the federal government, but it leaves out the vast majority of people who are in same-sex relationships," said Geoff Kors, head of Equality California, one of the state's largest gay rights groups.

As a candidate for president, Obama was a staunch supporter of gay and lesbian rights. He called for repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act and also the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which forbids openly gay men and women from serving in the armed forces. He promised to help lead the fight.

Since taking office, however, Obama has disappointed many gay activists by not just keeping silent but, lately, by defending some of the policies he criticized. After months of grumbling, the anger exploded in public denunciations this week after the administration filed its legal brief in Orange County federal court.

"Anyway you cut it, it is a sickening document," David Mixner, a longtime gay rights advocate, wrote in a blog posting that echoed the sentiments expressed by many in the gay community. "What in the hell were they thinking?"

In a statement the day of the filing, administration attorneys said Obama considered the marriage ban discriminatory and wanted it rescinded but was legally obligated to defend the law as long as it remained in force.

""All men are created equal..."

That is the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal standing.

[Havok]

D'OH! :facepalm:
Damn... no excuse for that.

[CmdrWilkens]

Reacting to a rising tide of anger from gay and lesbian supporters at a series of slights and deferred promises, President Obama will tomorrow extend some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

The move, which begins to mirror the policy of many large corporations, will have an immediate effect for many workers, but it is a deeply reactive response to a core Democratic group whose concerns have been festering for six months. The presidential memorandum -- scheduled for signing tomorrow at 5:45 p.m., may in the short term, give Joe Biden something positive to say at a June 25 fundraiser that has seen prominent guests drop out, a host sharply attack the administration, and which is expected to be marked by protests.

However, the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from extending health and retirement benefits to same-sex couples, so the benefits are more likely to be marginal -- like relocation assistance.

So yeah so long as DOMA is on the books we aren't talking about anything that will mollify anybody. Emphasis is mine the article can be found here.

[Broomstick]

Obama is supposed to follow the law. I know we aren't used to having a PotUS who actually does follow the law, but apparently we have one now. He can't declare DoMA invalid, nor can the justice department ethically refuse to defend the law that is on the books.

In other words, either DoMA must be repealed by Congress, or overturned by the Supreme Court. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to do that. Again, people are bitching because the Executive Branch is actually following the law?

GLBT folks need to lobby for a change in the law, not harass a PotUS who actually obeys the law as it currently stands.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Again, people are bitching because the Executive Branch is actually following the law?

GLBT folks need to lobby for a change in the law, not harass a PotUS who actually obeys the law as it currently stands.

No, the GLBT folks are pissed off because the PotUS has done very little to further the equality agenda. Frustration with the PotUS started when he refused to push for the repeal of DADT, which is now has the support of over 70% of Americans. Add to the fact that the DoJ now filed a brief in defense of DoMA with arguments that are frankly quite insulting, you now have turned that frustration into infuriation. To say that the gays are angry at the president for simply following the law is an oversimplification of the situation that ignores a plethora of factors that lead up to this response.

[Havok]

You are misrepresenting Broomsticks argument by not quoting the relevant part...

In other words, either DoMA must be repealed by Congress, or overturned by the Supreme Court. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to do that.

Obama is doing... something, and he is doing it within his legal limits. Yes, he certainly could be doing more, as far as speaking out and pushing congress harder, but at the same time, we want him around longer than 4 years. Forcing change too rapidly can be just as bad as no change at all.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You are misrepresenting Broomsticks argument by not quoting the relevant part...

In other words, either DoMA must be repealed by Congress, or overturned by the Supreme Court. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to do that.

Obama is doing... something, and he is doing it within his legal limits. Yes, he certainly could be doing more, as far as speaking out and pushing congress harder, but at the same time, we want him around longer than 4 years. Forcing change to rapidly can be just as bad as no change at all.

I understand that the PotUS' abilities are constitutionally limited. That was NOT what I was responding to. I was responding to Broomstick's comment that people are bitching simply because the Executive Branch is following the law. The reality is that people is bitching because of a combination of reasons, INCLUDING the DoMA brief, which was nothing short of insulting. And considering the broad support for the repeal of DADT, how can you argue that his snail-moving approach is the ideal strategy when it is costing him the LGBT constituency? The passing of so many anti-gay laws ( especially Prop 8 ) over the past few years have been pushing the LGBT community back so much that it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that they're not going to stand for it much longer.

[Broomstick]

Again, people are bitching because the Executive Branch is actually following the law?

GLBT folks need to lobby for a change in the law, not harass a PotUS who actually obeys the law as it currently stands.

No, the GLBT folks are pissed off because the PotUS has done very little to further the equality agenda.

I guess the point that he has legal limits just entirely sailed past you, huh?

Frustration with the PotUS started when he refused to push for the repeal of DADT, which is now has the support of over 70% of Americans. Add to the fact that the DoJ now filed a brief in defense of DoMA with arguments that are frankly quite insulting, you now have turned that frustration into infuriation. To say that the gays are angry at the president for simply following the law is an oversimplification of the situation that ignores a plethora of factors that lead up to this response.

He is not "simply following the law", he has extended Federal benefits to same-sex partners to the extent the law allows him to. He did not have to do that, indeed, there are many who would have praised him for not doing that. I understand that the GLBT coherent are furious at their situation, entirely justifiably, but don't piss on the first president in at least 8 years willing to do anything to help you. I know people aren't happy with DADT but perhaps you are not old enough to recall what went on before you had even that.

You may not realize it but you are FAR better off with slow, incremental change than an abrupt change that is quickly reversed.

It is far better to make these changes within the framework of law. I really think DoMA needs to go in front of the SCotUS to be overturned (I simply don't trust Congress to do that) which might well also result in confirmation of the full faith and credit clause requiring ALL states to recognize same-sex marriage. That will not, however, happen overnight. It also needs to happen in front of a court that will actually decide in that manner, as it is very difficult to overturn a SCotUS precedent in less than a generation or two.

And, sadly, it will all take time.

Meanwhile, will same-sex marriage legal in some states now, and a distinct lack of implosion, the general public will get used to the idea and be less inclined to believe stories of doom and damnation resulting from it. This will make it more likely that if DoMA is in front of Congress again, or something similar to it, angry constituents won't call up demanding that those perverts be restrained - on the contrary, it makes it more like that non-GLBT folks will support GLBT friendly legislation.

[Broomstick]

You are misrepresenting Broomsticks argument by not quoting the relevant part...

In other words, either DoMA must be repealed by Congress, or overturned by the Supreme Court. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to do that.

Obama is doing... something, and he is doing it within his legal limits. Yes, he certainly could be doing more, as far as speaking out and pushing congress harder, but at the same time, we want him around longer than 4 years. Forcing change to rapidly can be just as bad as no change at all.

I understand that the PotUS' abilities are constitutionally limited. That was NOT what I was responding to. I was responding to Broomstick's comment that people are bitching simply because the Executive Branch is following the law. The reality is that people is bitching because of a combination of reasons, INCLUDING the DoMA brief, which was nothing short of insulting.

The DoMA brief was not written by Obama, it was written by someone in the Justice Department which is required to defend the law as it is, not as we wish it to be. If the law is flawed there are two mechanisms by which to remedy it. Executive fiat is not one of them, although you might think otherwise given the last administration.

And considering the broad support for the repeal of DADT, how can you argue that his snail-moving approach is the ideal strategy when it is costing him the LGBT constituency?

1) While repeal of DADT may be broadly supported by the general public it apparently is NOT broadly supported by the military, or at least not by the command structure. Screwing with something that may significantly affect morale isn't real smart when you're fighting two wars and short on personnel.
2) The LGBT constituency, like it or not, is a small minority. Yes, he wants your support. However, if the choice is you or a majority of the rest of his constituents he is likely to throw you under the bus because that's how politics work. Why do people think this man is a saint? He's a politician. Not only that, he's a Chicago politician. He may be an unusually ethical and honorable one (and I'm not entirely convinced of that myself), but he's still a politician.

The passing of so many anti-gay laws ( especially Prop 8 ) over the past few years have been pushing the LGBT community back so much that it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that they're not going to stand for it much longer.

Excuse me - you did notice that the guy currently in the Oval Office is not the one behind the administration that passed those laws?

Not going to stand for it much longer? What are you going to do, stage a riot? Do you think that would help or hurt your cause?

Seriously, while I completely understand that LGBT people do get the short end of the stick and are all too often treated as second class citizens I don't think YOU, personally, appreciate just how much progress has been made in the last 30-40 years. In 1970 you wouldn't have been a second class citizen, you would have been a criminal in most of the US. Homosexuality was a felony. Not only did police routinely beat homosexuals, they were expected to and praised for doing so. In 1970 you couldn't get any job with the Feds, and if you had one and were found to be homosexual you'd be summarily fired. In 1970 there wasn't DADT - homosexuality got you an automatic dishonorable discharge. Even under Bush II you were better off than that.

Absolutely keep agitating for positive change, but don't whine when you don't get 100% of it as quickly as you want it. By making it policy now that same-sex partners get Federal benefits to the extent the law allows then as soon as DoMA is overturned and/or same-sex marriage becomes universal then same-sex partners will automatically get that coverage the same day. If he can't give you want you want today he's at least maneuvering to give it to you as soon as possible.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I guess the point that he has legal limits just entirely sailed past you, huh?

Not at all. In fact, I understand precisely what those legal limits are. What I was responding to you was your insinuation that the LGBT community is angry for just this one thing.

He is not "simply following the law", he has extended Federal benefits to same-sex partners to the extent the law allows him to. He did not have to do that, indeed, there are many who would have praised him for not doing that. I understand that the GLBT coherent are furious at their situation, entirely justifiably, but don't piss on the first president in at least 8 years willing to do anything to help you. I know people aren't happy with DADT but perhaps you are not old enough to recall what went on before you had even that.

Just because I was not alive when LGBT oppression was greater does that mean I don't understand those injustices nor does it justify the current situation. I really, really, really don't like being told that I'm not old enough to recall what oppression was like back in the days because I will never know what it was like (thankfully) and it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my arguments. It's belittling and frankly, very annoying.

You may not realize it but you are FAR better off with slow, incremental change than an abrupt change that is quickly reversed.

Considering the repeal of DADT has bipartisan support and the backing of 70% of Americans, how is pushing for a sooner repeal an abrupt change that runs the risk of reversal? If anything, it's a long overdue change that would be the conclusion of an already long ass process of repealing the gay ban that started in the early 90s. The president is losing the support of the LGBT community at a significant rate by not taking a more aggressive stance on this. Perhaps he knows a lot more than I do of the political situation and that his LGBT constituency isn't really worth that much to him politically.

It is far better to make these changes within the framework of law. I really think DoMA needs to go in front of the SCotUS to be overturned (I simply don't trust Congress to do that) which might well also result in confirmation of the full faith and credit clause requiring ALL states to recognize same-sex marriage. That will not, however, happen overnight. It also needs to happen in front of a court that will actually decide in that manner, as it is very difficult to overturn a SCotUS precedent in less than a generation or two.

And, sadly, it will all take time.

Meanwhile, will same-sex marriage legal in some states now, and a distinct lack of implosion, the general public will get used to the idea and be less inclined to believe stories of doom and damnation resulting from it. This will make it more likely that if DoMA is in front of Congress again, or something similar to it, angry constituents won't call up demanding that those perverts be restrained - on the contrary, it makes it more like that non-GLBT folks will support GLBT friendly legislation.

There is a current case (being argued by both formal rivals Theodore Olson and David Boies) that may end up in the Supreme Court, which is actually a lot sooner than most gay groups are comfortable with. Contrary to the impression given here, most LGBT right groups understand it will take time for equality. But they are simply just not satisfied with how slow Obama is going on issues like DADT when he could be moving a lot faster with very little to lose.

[Broomstick]

Sure, it would be great if he moved faster on this issue. I would fully support Obama doing just that. In fact, I would be 100% OK with legalizing same-sex marriage across the entire country tomorrow and enforcing legal protections that would make LGBT people full, equal citizens.

I also know that's not going to happen this year.

There are a LOT of other, really important, really pressing issues Obama is dealing with at the same time. While he's attending to LGBT interests some other group is bitching he's not dealing with the economy and when he's dealing with that somebody else is bitching about something else. Really, his job can almost be described as making sure everyone is equally unhappy rather than favoring one group over another. Politically, having discriminatory anti-LGBT stuff overturned by the courts is more advantageous to him in some ways than doing it himself.

Honestly, I'm little surprised he's gotten to it this soon. On other hand, I also understand that you wanted all this done yesterday.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The DoMA brief was not written by Obama, it was written by someone in the Justice Department which is required to defend the law as it is, not as we wish it to be. If the law is flawed there are two mechanisms by which to remedy it. Executive fiat is not one of them, although you might think otherwise given the last administration.

It doesn't matter. It still comes off as adding insult to injury, which explains the infuriation we are observing.

And considering the broad support for the repeal of DADT, how can you argue that his snail-moving approach is the ideal strategy when it is costing him the LGBT constituency?

1) While repeal of DADT may be broadly supported by the general public it apparently is NOT broadly supported by the military, or at least not by the command structure. Screwing with something that may significantly affect morale isn't real smart when you're fighting two wars and short on personnel.

What evidence do you have that repealing DADT will hurt the morale of the military?

2) The LGBT constituency, like it or not, is a small minority. Yes, he wants your support. However, if the choice is you or a majority of the rest of his constituents he is likely to throw you under the bus because that's how politics work. Why do people think this man is a saint? He's a politician. Not only that, he's a Chicago politician. He may be an unusually ethical and honorable one (and I'm not entirely convinced of that myself), but he's still a politician.

A reality that I and many have accepted. If he feels our vote is partially expendable, then so be it.

The passing of so many anti-gay laws ( especially Prop 8 ) over the past few years have been pushing the LGBT community back so much that it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that they're not going to stand for it much longer.

Excuse me - you did notice that the guy currently in the Oval Office is not the one behind the administration that passed those laws?

And that means the gay community should just sit back while the new guy does nothing? Or that it means the gay community will be content with simply the lack of regression?

Not going to stand for it much longer? What are you going to do, stage a riot? Do you think that would help or hurt your cause?

Who said anything about what I'm going to do? I'm just asking why is it surprising to anyone that the LGBT community is acting this way?

Seriously, while I completely understand that LGBT people do get the short end of the stick and are all too often treated as second class citizens I don't think YOU, personally, appreciate just how much progress has been made in the last 30-40 years. In 1970 you wouldn't have been a second class citizen, you would have been a criminal in most of the US. Homosexuality was a felony. Not only did police routinely beat homosexuals, they were expected to and praised for doing so. In 1970 you couldn't get any job with the Feds, and if you had one and were found to be homosexual you'd be summarily fired. In 1970 there wasn't DADT - homosexuality got you an automatic dishonorable discharge. Even under Bush II you were better off than that.

Absolutely keep agitating for positive change, but don't whine when you don't get 100% of it as quickly as you want it. By making it policy now that same-sex partners get Federal benefits to the extent the law allows then as soon as DoMA is overturned and/or same-sex marriage becomes universal then same-sex partners will automatically get that coverage the same day. If he can't give you want you want today he's at least maneuvering to give it to you as soon as possible.

Sure, it would be great if he moved faster on this issue. I would fully support Obama doing just that. In fact, I would be 100% OK with legalizing same-sex marriage across the entire country tomorrow and enforcing legal protections that would make LGBT people full, equal citizens.

I also know that's not going to happen this year.

There are a LOT of other, really important, really pressing issues Obama is dealing with at the same time. While he's attending to LGBT interests some other group is bitching he's not dealing with the economy and when he's dealing with that somebody else is bitching about something else. Really, his job can almost be described as making sure everyone is equally unhappy rather than favoring one group over another. Politically, having discriminatory anti-LGBT stuff overturned by the courts is more advantageous to him in some ways than doing it himself.

Honestly, I'm little surprised he's gotten to it this soon. On other hand, I also understand that you wanted all this done yesterday.

My personal philosophy is if you want the change tomorrow, you must act as if you want it today or it will never get there. I understand that we've made leaps and bounds since Stonewall in gay rights. In fact, I pointed out the considerable difference between the vote for Prop 22 and the vote for Prop 8 as a sign of commendable progress. And even if the media focuses mostly on frustrations with Obama's slow moving stance, it does not mean that most LGBT groups are putting the vast majority of their effort and resources in winning battles in their own communities and states. But there's always hope that making it well known to the president that we are not satisfied with his current pace will translate into further action down the future as opposed to staying the course.

In all honesty, I still give him the benefit of the doubt and so does my boyfriend. Healthcare reform isn't the easiest task in this country but the president still needs to know that our patience has its limits.

[Broomstick]

The DoMA brief was not written by Obama, it was written by someone in the Justice Department which is required to defend the law as it is, not as we wish it to be. If the law is flawed there are two mechanisms by which to remedy it. Executive fiat is not one of them, although you might think otherwise given the last administration.

It doesn't matter. It still comes off as adding insult to injury, which explains the infuriation we are observing.

Understood. It pissed off a lot of us heterosexuals,too. How dare they speak that way about our sisters/brothers/children/parents!

And considering the broad support for the repeal of DADT, how can you argue that his snail-moving approach is the ideal strategy when it is costing him the LGBT constituency?

1) While repeal of DADT may be broadly supported by the general public it apparently is NOT broadly supported by the military, or at least not by the command structure. Screwing with something that may significantly affect morale isn't real smart when you're fighting two wars and short on personnel.

What evidence do you have that repealing DADT will hurt the morale of the military?

Personally, I think they'll get over it, just as they got over racial integration. On the other hand, although the military was ordered to integrate in 1948 it didn't actually happen until 1951, when segregated units decimated in the Korean war accepted any color of replacement out of immediate necessity and proved under combat conditions that it didn't fucking matter what color a soldier was. I anticipate the current military to be at least as resistant to letting homosexuals openly serve as they were to racially integrating. Perhaps Obama is trying to win over a significant number of key people before he orders the military to get rid of DADT. I think the rank and file understand that when it comes to shooting those fruity pansies and bull dykes do just as well as the breeder boys and girls, the problem is the people who aren't under direct fire who nonetheless retain the ability to fuck things up for other people.

The passing of so many anti-gay laws ( especially Prop 8 ) over the past few years have been pushing the LGBT community back so much that it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that they're not going to stand for it much longer.

Excuse me - you did notice that the guy currently in the Oval Office is not the one behind the administration that passed those laws?

And that means the gay community should just sit back while the new guy does nothing? Or that it means the gay community will be content with simply the lack of regression?

The new guy is NOT doing "nothing". Arguably, he may not be doing enough, but he's not doing nothing.

Not going to stand for it much longer? What are you going to do, stage a riot? Do you think that would help or hurt your cause?

Who said anything about what I'm going to do? I'm just asking why is it surprising to anyone that the LGBT community is acting this way?

It was a collective "you", not a personal "you".

It's not surprising to me. I just hope you all don't shoot yourselves in your collective foot.

In all honesty, I still give him the benefit of the doubt and so does my boyfriend. Healthcare reform isn't the easiest task in this country but the president still needs to know that our patience has its limits.

By all means, continue to speak your mind and your position and let the PotUS know when you are and aren't happy with him. It is your right as citizens to do so, arguably your duty to do so.

[Patrick Degan]

To say that the gays are angry at the president for simply following the law is an oversimplification of the situation that ignores a plethora of factors that lead up to this response.

No, it is not an oversimplification. The Justice Department is legally obligated to defend the laws presently on the books. The president cannot overturn laws on mere executive fiat. He is not the king (even despite the fact that the previous occupants of the White House seemed to think so). He cannot refuse to do his legal and constitutional duty nor direct the Justice Department or any Executive Branch agency to do so.

DOMA was an act of Congress and as such must either be struck down in the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress. Until that happens, this president's hands are tied by the constraints of the laws he is bound by oath to carry out.

[CmdrWilkens]

There is a fine line between frustration and anger. Frustration I get, hell I understand and support frustration. From any perspective its a simple issue of equality of rights, something that should be so basic as to defy contradiction...so I get frustration that Obama hasn't done more. I get frustration that DADT and DoMA have not been top priority items, I get that hearing there are "more important things" than equal rights is a shitty excuse for not doing more.

The line is one of perception when frustration becomes anger. Getting honestly angry at Obama for the pace of reform (and he is doing something if admittedly under pressure) or for the lack of attention to GLBT issues is counterproductive. Anger solves nothing as it creates irrational distrust where the rationally frustrated see the political winds and can therefore seek to direct them.

Obviously since this distinction is so much a matter of emotion and it doesn't directly affect me I won't pretend to know how hard or easy it is to be frustrated but not angry but that would be my advice.

[Mayabird]

To say that the gays are angry at the president for simply following the law is an oversimplification of the situation that ignores a plethora of factors that lead up to this response.

No, it is not an oversimplification. The Justice Department is legally obligated to defend the laws presently on the books. The president cannot overturn laws on mere executive fiat. He is not the king (even despite the fact that the previous occupants of the White House seemed to think so). He cannot refuse to do his legal and constitutional duty nor direct the Justice Department or any Executive Branch agency to do so.

DOMA was an act of Congress and as such must either be struck down in the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress. Until that happens, this president's hands are tied by the constraints of the laws he is bound by oath to carry out.

So the moral here is to start harassing one's senators and congresscritters (and state legislators where possible) so they'll get off their asses about it, or at least get more worried about pissing off the LGBT rights lobby and supporters by being obstructive or silent.

[MKSheppard]

Ok... so maybe a little more eloquent, but one day, hopefully before I die, I will hear that.

Paging Havokekoff.....please report to Room 101 to have the fucking stupid beat out of you. I'll leave the reasons why to you geniuses on SDN. Perhaps you can figure out why what Havok said was so goddamn stupid.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ok... so maybe a little more eloquent, but one day, hopefully before I die, I will hear that.

Paging Havokekoff.....please report to Room 101 to have the fucking stupid beat out of you. I'll leave the reasons why to you geniuses on SDN. Perhaps you can figure out why what Havok said was so goddamn stupid.

It was already brought up in the thread, Shepples.

[MKSheppard]

It was already brought up in the thread, Shepples.

No, it's not the explanation put forth by others. I'll let ya guys think about it for a moment.

[Samuel]

It was already brought up in the thread, Shepples.

No, it's not the explanation put forth by others. I'll let ya guys think about it for a moment.

The president can't declare laws are unconstitutional?

[Vendetta]

It was already brought up in the thread, Shepples.

No, it's not the explanation put forth by others. I'll let ya guys think about it for a moment.

The president can't declare laws are unconstitutional?

For a start, I believe that that's the job of the Supreme Court, though a president could certainly give his opinion on the matter, for second, the thing Hav was talking about isn't in the Constitution anyway.

[Samuel]

That has already been stated. By me. Immediately after Havok's post.