Reid To Bring Defense Bill To The Floor With DADT Repeal Amendment

[ProSense]

Reid To Bring Defense Bill To The Floor With DADT Repeal Amendment

Moments ago, Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), and the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), announced that White House officials and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will bring the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to the floor of the Senate during the lame duck session, with an amendment to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

Key Senate leadership and Administration officials this evening met with representatives of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), and the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF). The officials told the groups that Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama are committed to moving forward on repeal by bringing the National Defense Authorization Act – the bill to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is attached – to the floor in the lame duck session after the Thanksgiving recess. Further the Majority Leader and the President made clear their opposition to removing the DADT provision from the NDAA. Information on the exact timing and procedural conditions will be announced by the Majority Leader’s office.

The question, of course, is whether the Senate will have enough time to consider the measure in an open amendment process, something that typically requires two weeks of debate. Therefore, if Reid brings the measure to the floor on Monday, November 29th, the Senate could finish debate and vote on the bill by December 13th and then begin conferencing the measure with the aim of passing it before Christmas.

“Present at the meeting with representatives from HRC, SLDN and CAPAF were: Jim Messina, Deputy White House Chief of Staff; Phil Schiliro, White House Director of Legislative Affairs; Chris Kang, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs; Brian Bond, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; David Krone, Chief of Staff to Majority Leader Reid; and Serena Hoy, Senior Counsel to Majority Leader Reid,” the groups’ press release states.

Tomorrow, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Mark Udall (D-CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Roland Burris (D-IL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Al Franken (D-MN) are also scheduled to hold a press conference urging the Senate to repeal the policy during the lame duck session.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. This is way overdue for getting done.

Come on, Dems!

Get behind it and get it passed.

[jenmito]

2. They better get DADT repealed...

as I said on another thread: If they DON'T, Obama better repeal it through an Executive Order, even though that won't have the force of Congress behind it. But as a last option, it would be better than nothing.

[TheWraith]

3. You cannot repeal statute law via executive order.

It just doesn't work that way.

[jenmito]

5. Then what were all the threads about saying he could end it right now if he wanted to? n/t

[TheWraith]

7. Because people want to believe that the President has no restraints on his power.

And because that idea was promulgated early on by the Palm Center, until they were called out by Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network for their factual inaccuracy, and Palm retracted their "report."

Nevertheless, some people here still find it more satisfying to believe that Obama has the power to just overrule federal law, and chooses not to.

[TriMera]

9. Can you link to anything that says that the Palm Center retracted

their report? Last time I checked, that was not the case.

[TheWraith]

13. The Palm Center cited "stop loss" as authorizing the President to halt discharges.

The stop-loss statute SPECIFICALLY excludes people discharged for homosexuality from qualifying for stop loss.

The SLDN called them out on this publicly, and the Palm Center stopped making that exact argument, though they're still citing bogus claims.

[jenmito]

10. OK, that's what I thought...

but I guess if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes true. I was with those who said it takes Congress to repeal it. Thanks for the reality check.

[TriMera]

11. Just so you know, the Palm Center report has not been

retracted. Here's a link to the report, if you would like to read it.

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

[Orangepeel]

8. there is an argument that as C-in-C, he could stop enforcement of the statute for national security

[TheWraith]

14. By that same logic, Bush could suspend anti-torture laws in the name of national security.

Which should give everyone a good idea of exactly how dangerous it is to give the President sole authority over what laws are valid and what ones aren't, which is why our legal system is designed explicitly to NOT do that.

[dsc]

15. funny how he did exactly that when it came to straight people who got screwed by a bad law

There was a law, called the widow's penalty, which made anyone who's spouse died in the two year window it takes to cerify a marriage for immigration purposes subject to immediate deportation. Napolitano, with presumedly Obama's blessing, simply stopped enforcing that law to give Congress time to change it. The sun still rose in the east and set in the west for the year and a half that law wasn't enforced prior to it being changed. But that was for straight people and we all know they actually matter.

[muffin1]

16. +1 nt

[TheWraith]

17. There's a big difference between administrative rules and statute law.

The "widow's penalty" was the result of an interpretation of federal law that required two years of marriage before residency was approved. That interpretation was that if the American spouse died before the two years was up, it didn't count. Nothing in federal law actually said that, it just didn't account for it, and was being handled under a more hostile interpretation. Napolitano put an administrative hold on those cases, as she's legally permitted to do, pending legislative or judicial clarification of the law.

DADT on the other hand is a very explicit statute which is specifically written to make it basically impossible to screw with from an administrative perspective, since it leaves control of the process almost solely in the hands of the career officers at the Pentagon. No one has the authority to suspend enforcement: not the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs. Not via direct orders, stop-loss, or anything else other than a wholesale removal of the law. The only work around is to narrow the definitions of what senior administrators are eligible to approve discharges, which Obama has done.

[AlinPA]

4. How so? It seems that would be only symbolic. nt

[jenmito]

6. I'll have to search past threads to see if I'm remembering something that wasn't said. :) n/t

[jenmito]

12. Rachel is covering this now. Her guest, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach (who may be

forced to leave the Air Force due to DADT, is VERY encouraged by today's and tonight's developments, and is also very pleased with Obama's role in this happening. :)