If Obama truely believes homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military, why don'
Obamanism
Join Date: 2009-11-20 Member: 69442Banned
Join Date: 2009-11-20 Member: 69442Banned
in Discussions
Comments
Campaign promises basically don't mean anything, though. They're broken all the time. He already broke his promise to filibuster any bill that granted immunity to telecom companies for their complicity with warrantless wiretaps. Nobody expects a president to follow through on everything they promise, and it's even less expected that they do it immediately or even with all deliberate speed.
Are you saying the Commander-In-Chief should defer to the Senate?
Hrr perhaps you misunderstand the idea of having a staff.
Obama may be the one who gets to have the final say in where the military goes but people don't elect him to lead the charge, the idea is that he has all these advisors like generals and economy ministers or whatever the american term is, we call them chancellor of the exchequer.
He has the power to make snap decisions about something and that is useful because sometimes you may need to do something very quickly without debating it for ages, but the idea is that you don't use that power unless neccesary. Being the president does not mean you are king of america, it means you are the one everyone goes to, you listen to all the arguments and then once you have heard them all, you put it to someone else to sort out.
In this case, I would suggest putting it to congress, because the reason congress exists is to allow the representatives of each state (who are supposed to represent the prevailing opinions in those states) to vote on any proposed changes to the national laws. In this way you supposedly get the prevailing views of the entire country, but of course there is a lot of miscommunication involved in so many layers of government so it probably doesn't work very well.
So, if he wants to make this change, and support democracy at the same time, he should propose a bill for congress and let them decide, while of course supporting it himself. He is not supposed to be a tyrant, merely the first among equals.
This is how senates have worked since roman times, before the roman empire the consuls would lead the senate and speak for it, but they still proposed changes to the senate rather than just going out and doing it, or at least that was the idea anyway. Of course once they had an emperor that kind of went down the pan, but that's how parliament works over here and it is also how the american senate still works as far as I'm aware.
better get those sith powers in action, eh?
I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was refering to those pesky checks and balances. Not that the senate should rule the country with an iron fist(s) instead of the president.