even get passed, thank goodness.
If neither of her unconstitutional flag desecration bills could make it to Dummya's desk, how serious was the threat of a Constitutional amendment, which has to meet a much higher standard than a bill.
And, would someone explain to me why an unconstitutional bill forbidding flag desecration would have been better than a Constitutional amendment forbidding flag desecration?
Throwing red meat to the nation's neocons in hopes of getting elected or re-elected is the drill here.
DOMA passed July 1996, signed into law--instead of being vetoed, as it should have been--September 21, 1996, less than two months away from Presidential re-election.
Two flag desecration bills, put forward by Senator Hillary Clinton, in contemplation of running for President in 2008 as a, um, moderate.
Same bs excuse for both--preventing a Constitutional amendment.
The CIC and Congress have overlapping powers regarding the military. By custom and tradition, once one has acted regarding a specific military matter, the other keeps its hands off that specific matter.
As far as DADT, even worse bs. Reagan had signed an Executive Order excluding gays from the military. Bubba had every power simply to revoke Reagan's vile executive order via another executive order. However, Bubba did not want to take responsibility for cutting back on Reagan's vileness by an Executive Order of his (Bubba's) own, so he got Congress to pass DADT. That made it dicey for the Executive to give military members of the GLBTQ community greater and better rights than DADT gave them.
Another Clinton M.O. was to lobby hard as hell for something like repeal of Glass Steagall and the Commodities Futures Financial Services Act then point to an allegedly "veto proof majority" as the reason for signing it.
Don't trust the Clintons? Gee, I cannot imagine why. 
Let me count the ways.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read