Sign the petition asking AG Holder NOT to defend DADT

[pinboy3niner]

A message from the Courage Campaign:






Dear <Courage Campaign Supporter>--

Amazing news! A federal district court judge just issued an injunction ordering the military to STOP ENFORCING "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" IMMEDIATELY.

Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military to immediately suspend and discontinue any investigation, discharge, separation, or other proceeding that may have been commenced under the DADT. Barring a stay by a higher court, the injunction suspends all investigations and prevents all discharges under the policy.

Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have a choice: fight the decision or let it stand. If they choose not to appeal the injunction, it will move "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" one step closer to the dustbin of history.

This is urgent. You can tell Attorney General Eric Holder not to defend "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" right now. Click here to sign your name to an open letter asking the Justice Department NOT to appeal the injunction and the historic federal court decision that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is unconstitutional:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/DontDefendDADT

The short petition to Attorney General Holder says:

I respectfully write to request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) refrain from appealing the federal district court injunction in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, following the court decision declaring the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) law unconstitutional.

The leaders of our nation's armed forces understand that DADT serves no purpose in the laws of our nation; it is time for the DOJ to stop defending this law.

If Attorney General Eric Holder takes leadership, he can help the Obama Administration make history, joining a federal court in the judgement that discrimination -- especially against those willing to take a bullet for their country -- is un-American.

We need Attorney General Holder to get the message. Click here now to add your name to our open letter. Then ask five friends to join you today. There's not much time:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/DontDefendDADT

Together, we will end this discrimination in our nation's military once and for all. Thank you.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign





__________________________________________

ETA: And, as DUer Bette Noir suggested in an earlier thread, we can also express our feelings loud and clear to the White House and the President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[Starry Messenger]

1. k & r

signed

[donco6]

2. Signed. But really - in what universe is that going to happen? n/t

[Smashcut]

3. Signed in futility

[Solly Mack]

4. k/r

[RKP5637]

5. Done. n/t

[TheWraith]

6. That's both futile and counterproductive.

1. The DOJ is required to defend federal law. It's not a discretionary thing.

2. Everyone on our side should want this appealed up to the highest levels to produce better precedent and get it into the SCOTUS.

[msanthrope]

7. I want to draw to your attention a very interesting part of the Memo of Opinion--

Finally, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act. This evidence, discussed in Section IV(C)(1) above, does not suffice to show the Act's restrictions on speech are "no more than is reasonably necessary" to achieve the goals of military readiness and unit cohesion. (See supra Section IV(C)(1).) Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 250 Filed 10/12/10 Page 85 of 86 Page ID #:7701


http://www.scribd.com/doc/39202813/LCR-v-USA-Amended-Final-Memorandum-Opinion

What say you?

(and I think your analysis correct.)

[joeybee12]

8. STOP! The lies and distortions are making my head hurt!

IT IS DISCRETIONARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[msanthrope]

11. Explain how the Office of Legal Counsel Opinions are discretionary?

The Department of Justice has a duty to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress whenever a reasonable argument can be made in its support, even if the Attorney General concludes that the argument may ultimately be unsuccessful in the courts. The Attorney General’s Duty to Defend the Constitutionality of Statutes, 5 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 25(1981).

[pinboy3niner]

9. DOJ is under no legal requirement to defend it

Administrations traditionally do defend current law as a matter of policy, but--without searching at the moment--I believe I read that there have been exceptions. Legally, there is nothing that ties DOJ's hands in deciding whether or not to appeal. From one of today's reports:

The Justice Department has 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the government is under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39637073/ns/us_news-life

[msanthrope]

10. Can you cite that? Because here's the Duty to Defend--

The Department of Justice has a duty to defend the constitutionality of anAct of Congress whenever a reasonable argument can be made in itssupport, even if the Attorney General concludes that the argument mayultimately be unsuccessful in the courts. The Attorney General’s Duty toDefend the Constitutionality of Statutes, 5 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 25(1981).

and the DOJ is bound by that.

[pinboy3niner]

12. If the President/DOJ find a law unconstitutional, do they have a duty to defend it?

The President also has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, which would conflict with the duty to defend a statute when the statute is deemed unconstitutional.

A quick search indicates that legal opinions vary as to whether or not the duty to defend an Act of Congress actually is controlling in all cases.

[msanthrope]

13. It's not the role of the Executive to decide constitutionality. n/t