Reply #87: You're being purposefully dense

[Chulanowa]

it is not the executive's purview to rule on the constitutionality of a law. They are constitutionally bound to enforce the law of the land, whatever it may be, until the law is either repealed by congress or overturned by the courts.

Of course's it's unconstitutional; So is letting the executive branch reach and act on that conclusion.

Two; Truman integrated units with an executive order. On his side was the fact that military segregation was a tradition and NOT actually a law. Richard Russel tried to attach amendments to military spending bills that WOULD have made segregation the law of the land, thus defeating Truman's orders by making them retroactively illegal - if the amendment had passed (it was defeated by congress both times it was brought up) then there is not shit Truman could have done.

By comparison, DADT is an actual law. Before DADT, it was, again, "just tradition." Now the segregation is lawful, even if it's not constitutional. By MAKING it a law, the legislators passing it basically immunized it from Truman-style action, which was the whole fucking point.

Learn what the fuck you are talking about before you speak. when you do, maybe we'll speak again. i'm done with you now.