9:30 am ET
Jul 18, 2011

Constitutional Law

Ninth Circuit Reinstates ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

    • I was not aware there was an exception to the Constitution to keep unconstitutional statutes like DADT in place in order to ensure "orderly transition."

      "Orderly transition" sounds like police state gobbledygook, and I'm not so thrilled with the Ninth Circuit's decision to backup the military at the expense of the Constitution.

      The historical trend is that individual liberties and rights in America are only protected by the courts under the Constitution when it's convenient to do so.

    • I guess expecting a law blog writer on staff at a Murdoch newspaper to know anything about the legislative process in the U. S. is too much to ask. Congress passed legislation annulling DADT, Obama signed the legislation. While Obama encouraged the annulment, he did not have the power to do so on his own.

    • It has only been contrived in the past 40 years that the way a person chooses to have sex qualifies them as a constitutionally protected group. Give the military and the courts a break, it's hard to keep up with constantly changing morale values. I think this is good practice for all the other changes that will start coming in from other fring groups.


      It's not that gays are a constitutionally protected group; rather, it's about all individuals -- whether gay or straight -- entitled to equal protection of the laws under the constitution. The constitution provides freedom for all, not just freedom for some. Apparently some think the Constitution applies only to those groups such as straights or rednecks whom the generals favor.

    • "Contrived" is precisely the right term. Deal with it.

    • . . . so when the military went after the gays it was "contriving" them?

    • “undermine carefully crafted efforts"? Really? What is that? Just get it over with so we can move on...! This governement loves to drag its feet with everything. Our governement is a drama queen!!!!!!!!

    • @Anonymous:

      "It’s not that gays are a constitutionally protected group; rather, it’s about all individuals — whether gay or straight — entitled to equal protection of the laws under the constitution."

      You are confused. The constitution protects individual rights. It does not provide a guarantee of privileges to people who engage in certain arbitrary behaviors. Things like marriage and military service confer certain privileges. One cannot just arbitrarily make up certain behaviors, and then go claim the privileges.

      In a store you cannot just take the free jar of spaghetti sauce offered under a "buy one get one free" special. You have to buy the first one to get the second one as a privilege. Every shopper has "equal protection", or can participate in the special if they agree to the rules.

      Every person can be in the military if they follow the rules and standards of conduct. Otherwise, people rejected for having flat feet, being beyond a certain body mass, using drugs, or numerous other standards could just sue? Same logic goes for the privileges that go along with marriage.

    • Logic, the constitution provides equal protection under the law to all individuals, and prohibits the government from treating in an arbitrary manner some citizens different than others . . . if you don't like American freedom then move to some other gay-hating country like Iraq or Afghanistan.

    • The military's distinction between gays and straights is arbitrary, and accordingly violates the equal protection clause. The military has no constitutional right to say straight sexuality comports with military needs but gay sexuality does not. Now if the military had a rule that only people engaged in no sexuality -- either gay or straight -- could be a member, then it would have a uniform rule which is applied equally.

    • Military logic is to logic what military music is to music.

    • @"Logic" -- Your "logic" only works because you have defined your terms in a way that ensures your argument works. If we strip that away, you are left just making a political statement about how you *believe* that rights and privileges *should* work -- not a logical argument, and certainly not a legal one.

      @Mr. Weed -- The Executive has the power to stop enforcing DADT, especially if s/he believes it is unconstitutional. Congress might not *like* it, but their power to retaliate is with their control of the purse strings. The *problem* is that there would be no stability -- the next Executive could simply decide to start enforcing it again.

    • The only thing more twisted than the Obamaly's mishandling of DADT's repeal are the gymnastics of HRC, Victory Fund, Lambda, the Task Force and the other left-wing gay rights groups who continue to contort thmselves into every possible position to back Obama and bash the Log Cabin Republicans and SLDN who got the real work done in dismantling DADT.

    • Major General Hummer? Who makes this stuff up?

      DADT, whatever. Why doesn't the military take the honorable way out and ban all discussion of sexuality?

    • I don't know who writes these articles, but they need to understand how the American system of government works.

      Logic @1:40 PM is correct. You can't create rights based on attributes, then claim sanctuary under the US Constitution's amendments. Obama did nothing except sign a bill. It was the US Congress that nullified DADT. Obama can't make law (although I'm sure he thinks he can).

      This tempest in a teapot is destroying the country. The idea that a group can declare themselves both outside the law and protected by the law is simply stupid. It is self-serving claptrap.

    • A nation who promagates homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle is especially grevious, since NO NATION COULD SURVIVE LONG if all in it were to decide (there is NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE proving that homosexual actions are due to biology) to seek sexual satifaction with the same sex, instead of building hetrosexual family units that nations DEPEND UPON TO SURVIVE. It is NOT the homosexual who is content with being quiet, but rather the OPENLY homosexual who DEMANDS that EVERYONE APPROVE of just about whatever vile sexual acts they can possibly think of, or they end up persecuting them. Homosexual rape in the U.S, military is not rare enough as it is right now. This nation was NOT founded to promote adultery, abortion-on-demand or homosexuality, but instead the traditional family unit of parents and children. Sodom and Gomorrah (see Discovery channel for details of this historical event) was destroyed AS AN EXAMPLE to those in the futhre who would flaunt their homosexuality and persecute those who do not conform to homosexual approval. Mrs. Bachmann says she will likely re-enstate DADT. If not, I believe this country is DOOMED! YAHUAH CANNOT and WILL NOT bless this nation under a military that uses its swords to promagate and enforce this form of Paganism throughout the world. Thanks for listening, 777denny

Add a Comment


About Law Blog



    • Law Blog on Twitter

Must Reads

Law Bureau

Top Law Stories