Hi all,

According to this story posted on yahoo and written by the associated press, stated that U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips (in federal court) struck down the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy signed into law by Ex-president Bill Clinton in early 1990’s.  And it is a current debate with current President Barack Obama who made a promise to repeal it (which is yet to be seen).

According to the article, it was struck down because it violated the 1st and 5th amendments.

You can read the Bill of Rights here, but to state the 1st and 5th amendments:

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

5th: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now if you read my previous blog posting on prop. 8 in California you will see how I feel 5th amendment applies to the repealing of prop. 8.  But let us apply it to DADT.  Now unlike gay marriage with previous case law such as straight and interracial couples, there is not previous rulings that would guide this decision one way or another, that I know of.  But just like repealing prop. 8 it does violate the part about not being deprived of life liberty or property with due process of law.  Because gay are deprived of the life and liberty of serving in the military while being openly gay.  To some gays just like straights, to them the military may be their life and would want a career in the military.  Due proess is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law (from wikipedia) and this part of the 5th amendment of the constitution is violated by DADT.  It is because that this principle of law is that gays serving in the military is that all legal rights are owed to every person because serving in the military is not being afforded to people who are gay (bi, lesbian, etc.).  Therefore DADT, is unconstitutional.  According to the ruling, the 1st amendment is violated by DADT.  I can reasonably see the part about “….to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  I feel that that this is violated because supporters of gay rights that the government was never really readdressed this grievance against again an entire group of people who are just wanting to serve their country.

On different but somewhat practical note the article suggests that this is a threat towards national security.  Reason being that (especially) in a time of war and with our military being somewhat depleted with being in 2 wars that the military shouldn’t be picky of whom they let into the military.

I feel that DADT should be struck down for all the reasons that were stated above and that the military of all places because any person should be able to serve in the military of the country they love so dearly.  It should be struck down and not be in effect any longer.

Steve

Pages looked at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Amendments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100910/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military

Advertisements