Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Posted on Aug 29, 2017
Fact-checking Trump’s reasons for a transgender military ban
Suspended Profile
4.69K
12
52
PLEASE READ THE ACTUAL POTUS MEMO - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/presidential-memorandum-secretary-defense-and-secretary-homeland
Nothing changes until 1/1/2018 and 3/23/2018. Even then the changes affect only new recruitment and surgical sex reassignment (except to the extent needed the protect the health of the individual). The change remains effective only until such time as SECDEF provides a convincing argument that a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating the policy and practice would not have the negative effects. Finally, SECDEF shall make a determination as to what steps are appropriate and consistent with military effectiveness and lethality, budgetary constraints, and applicable law re how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the military. Until the SECDEF makes a determination, no action may be taken against any individuals under new policy. There is a lot yet to be determined - including the definition of transgender - and the review of evidence re whether transgender (as opposed to transsexual) servicemembers are an issue at all. Time to call in a few markers - and make an appointment with SECDEF to help in reasonable decisionmaking. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
The proposed ban is headed for US Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal and OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) have all sued the administration. While two of the suits focus on transgender people already serving in the military, the one brought by Lambda Legal and SLDN encompasses both current soldiers and people who want to enlist.
Nothing changes until 1/1/2018 and 3/23/2018. Even then the changes affect only new recruitment and surgical sex reassignment (except to the extent needed the protect the health of the individual). The change remains effective only until such time as SECDEF provides a convincing argument that a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating the policy and practice would not have the negative effects. Finally, SECDEF shall make a determination as to what steps are appropriate and consistent with military effectiveness and lethality, budgetary constraints, and applicable law re how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the military. Until the SECDEF makes a determination, no action may be taken against any individuals under new policy. There is a lot yet to be determined - including the definition of transgender - and the review of evidence re whether transgender (as opposed to transsexual) servicemembers are an issue at all. Time to call in a few markers - and make an appointment with SECDEF to help in reasonable decisionmaking. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
The proposed ban is headed for US Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal and OutServe-Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) have all sued the administration. While two of the suits focus on transgender people already serving in the military, the one brought by Lambda Legal and SLDN encompasses both current soldiers and people who want to enlist.
Fact-checking Trump’s reasons for a transgender military ban
Posted from pbs.orgPosted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Republicans
Democrats
Supreme Court
Transgender
Office of the President (POTUS) Republicans Democrats Supreme Court Transgender
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
I love discussions that start right from the Source document. It removes most possibilities of biased interpretations from media sources, and cuts right to the chase. I hope everything works out favorably for all involved.
Any competent and capable person willing to serve and possibly die fighting on the behalf of the Constitution, and the citizens of the U.S., (even the ones that CHOOSE to hate us) is welcome in my eyes. If it were not for those Objective minds in the not so distant past, I would not be where I am today.
Any competent and capable person willing to serve and possibly die fighting on the behalf of the Constitution, and the citizens of the U.S., (even the ones that CHOOSE to hate us) is welcome in my eyes. If it were not for those Objective minds in the not so distant past, I would not be where I am today.
The memorandum looks reasonable to me. Three major takeaways;
1. Not banning current trans SMs.
2. Halting recruitment of further openly trans individuals.
3. Final decision on the subject of trans in the military to be made after DoD study concludes.
While I'm not opposed to trans individuals serving, it makes sense to me that we need to ensure a change in policy has more benefits than drawbacks to readiness before we allow it to be fully implemented.
1. Not banning current trans SMs.
2. Halting recruitment of further openly trans individuals.
3. Final decision on the subject of trans in the military to be made after DoD study concludes.
While I'm not opposed to trans individuals serving, it makes sense to me that we need to ensure a change in policy has more benefits than drawbacks to readiness before we allow it to be fully implemented.
Thanks 1LT Sandy Annala for sharing a well-reasoned position paper.
For existing service members the ban seems to be moot.
The Lambda Legal and SLDN encompasses both current soldiers and people who want to enlist may be considered by the court since people who want to join are the ones effected directly by the ban on transsexuals.
The basic issue for the court is whether serving in the military is a privilege or a right. If there was a draft in place it would be a more compelling argument IMHO.
My understanding is that serving in the armed forces of the USA is a privilege and we who serve [have served] serve at the the pleasure of the President and appointed leaders.
Induction standards have existed since the Continental Army was forming. We exclude those who are too short, too tall, too thin or too heavy have serious health issues, etc. Jut because somebody wants to join does not give the any sort of right to.
FYI LTC John Shaw COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Wayne Brandon LTC Bill Koski SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4"
LTC Stephen C. Capt Seid Waddell Capt Tom Brown SFC William Farrell SSgt Robert Marx Maj Marty Hogan PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SPC Margaret Higgins SSG William Wall MSgt Jason McClish AN Christopher Crayne Sgt Trevor Barrett SPC Tom DeSmet SGT Charles H. Hawes
For existing service members the ban seems to be moot.
The Lambda Legal and SLDN encompasses both current soldiers and people who want to enlist may be considered by the court since people who want to join are the ones effected directly by the ban on transsexuals.
The basic issue for the court is whether serving in the military is a privilege or a right. If there was a draft in place it would be a more compelling argument IMHO.
My understanding is that serving in the armed forces of the USA is a privilege and we who serve [have served] serve at the the pleasure of the President and appointed leaders.
Induction standards have existed since the Continental Army was forming. We exclude those who are too short, too tall, too thin or too heavy have serious health issues, etc. Jut because somebody wants to join does not give the any sort of right to.
FYI LTC John Shaw COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Wayne Brandon LTC Bill Koski SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4"
LTC Stephen C. Capt Seid Waddell Capt Tom Brown SFC William Farrell SSgt Robert Marx Maj Marty Hogan PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SPC Margaret Higgins SSG William Wall MSgt Jason McClish AN Christopher Crayne Sgt Trevor Barrett SPC Tom DeSmet SGT Charles H. Hawes
LTC (Join to see)
Actually not whether it is a privilege or a right, but rather whether the state (country) has a sufficient interest in the limitation to warrant discrimination, and if so, what level of state interest should be required.
Supreme Court precedent identifies race and sex as protected classes and discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny and must have a compelling state interest. Other (lower) levels of scrutiny are heightened scrutiny and rational basis.
LGBTQ discrimination used to be subject only to rational basis (the lowest level of scrutiny), but since Obergrfel v Hodges that level is believed to be higher, but no precedent decision has yet been made to all LBGTQ issues.
I hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing and makes LBGTQ discrimination the same as race or sex discrimination, subject to the highest scrutiny and as such almost always unconstitutional.
Supreme Court precedent identifies race and sex as protected classes and discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny and must have a compelling state interest. Other (lower) levels of scrutiny are heightened scrutiny and rational basis.
LGBTQ discrimination used to be subject only to rational basis (the lowest level of scrutiny), but since Obergrfel v Hodges that level is believed to be higher, but no precedent decision has yet been made to all LBGTQ issues.
I hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing and makes LBGTQ discrimination the same as race or sex discrimination, subject to the highest scrutiny and as such almost always unconstitutional.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
www.dsm.org
For TechnoMotive, try here.After running for 15 years, the server that hosted this site crashed hard. I've found a raw copy of this site from 2000-10-01. Unfortunately, the content was partially dynamic and resurecting that could prove to be painful. I've placed all the static content on here so many of the inbound links from Google and other places should still work.In the meantime, you can try this link from the Internet Archive Wayback...
www.dsm5.org
www.dsm.org
For TechnoMotive, try here.After running for 15 years, the server that hosted this site crashed hard. I've found a raw copy of this site from 2000-10-01. Unfortunately, the content was partially dynamic and resurecting that could prove to be painful. I've placed all the static content on here so many of the inbound links from Google and other places should still work.In the meantime, you can try this link from the Internet Archive Wayback...