Liberal media!

Post Reply New Topic

I'd already arived at my conclusion but thanks anyway..............

Huh?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Again with the amateurish legal analysis.

Being openly gay is an "action" that takes place in the present continuous. Once come out, you are out forever--there's no way to go back in the closet. There is no retrospective protection, because gay and lesbian people in the armed forces cannot stop being gay or lesbian and cannot undo their disclosure.

One of the most salient cases on the issue is Watkins v. U.S. Army (1989) 875 F.(2d) 699 (U.S.C.A.9th). In this case the army sought to discharge a homosexual on that basis alone (there was no allegation of misconduct), notwithstanding permitting previous reenlistments when it had actual knowledge of his sexual orientation.

The matter was resolved on an equitable estoppel--in other words, although the policy and practice was perfectly legal, it wasn't going to be permitted, because the plaintiff could not be said to be aware that homosexuality was a nonwaivable disqualification to reenlistment, since the Army had previously waived it.

But a reimposition of DADT (or even worse, a ban on LGBT personnel) will not bring with it such an equitable circumstance, because it won't the the application of a previously inconsistently applied policy, it would be the imposition of a new policy.

Republicans who believe in the liberty of the individual have, I suggest, a positive duty to demonstrate their commitment to that principle by giving their full-throated support to the repeal of DADT, and commiting to never permitting its reimposition.

We're looking at a different situation now though, DADT has been abolished and supposedly it is okay for people to admit they are homosexual. This may be different in Canada, I'm not an expert on Canadian law just like you really don't know much about United States Law, in the United States an Ex post facto law is expressly forbidden as stated in the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 9, clause 3.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_On ... n_Congress

I may not be an expert in United States' constitutional law--but I'm about to demonstrate that I have significantly better research skills than you.

I suggest that you should read the judgement in Calder v. Bull (1798) 3 Dall. 386 (U.S. S.C.). It's the leading case on the definition of ex post facto law as that term is used in the United States Constitution. While that case dealt with a state rather than a federal law, nonetheless the court established that Article I, s. 10 (and by extension Article I, s. 9 when dealing with the federal government) applies only to criminal law matters.

But the enlistment and discharge of members of the armed forces is not a criminal matter, it is an administrative law matter. While not favoured, the Supreme Court will defer to Congress if Congress expressly confers authority to make retroactive rules upon an administrative agency (most recently confirmed in Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital (1988) 488 U.S. 204.)

Even though that point is fully determinative of the application of Article I, section 9, to DADT, let's press a little further.

A law is ex post facto only if it seeks to impose a penalty or an increased penalty for an action that is complete prior to the enactment of the law (notably, a law that decriminalizes or mitigates a penalty is never ex post facto). A law is not ex post facto if it seeks to prohibit conduct that is ongoing both before and after the imposition of the law. For example, statute requires the registration of sex offenders even where their convictions predate the law. Even if the offence, conviction and termination of the sentence entirely predate the statute, the registration obligation still exits.

Serving members of the armed forces who have affirmatively declared their sexuality do not cease to be openly gay, and they will have no immunity from statutes that impose burdens upon them as a class.

Republicans were vehemently opposed to the DADT policy in the first place (Newt Gingrich was one of the most strident critics).

Take that all the way back to Barry Goldwater.

Where is Barry Goldwater, now that we need him so badly. Unfortunately dead and none have come to replace him.

ruveyn

Running for president, isn't he?

There's hope..........

No, there isn't. Gingrish's staff has deserted him, and he's rock bottom in the polls. He has a snowball's chance in hell. Which is sad, as at least Gingrich is an intellectual (when he's not trying to look like one of the other nuts running for Republican president), which is a far cry from insane idiots like Perry and Bachmann stealing all the press.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I have to admit that I haven't kept up on the current state of the polls.
It's too far off to worry about when I have other things closer to home on my plate.
Once again , I don't think you have to worry too much about Bachmann in 2012.
Perry maybe but it's still over a year off.
Aaaannnnddd to confirm your ever paranoid suspicion; yes I’d vote for Perry or Bachmann over Obama any day.

Well, in that case, I wish I could just say that that would be just your nightmare - but the truth is, Bachmann or Perry it would be all our nightmares.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

We conservatives don't see it that way.

You're more than welcome to your opinion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer