Homosexuals want to marry? This is not a big issue for me. I honestly don't care either way.
What I do care about however is the President of the United States deciding arbitrarily what laws he will or will not enforce or defend. The defense of marriage law (DOMA) was enacted by congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It is the law of the land. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional expert but I'm pretty sure the Justice department is supposed to defend all of the laws not just the ones they agree with.
I wonder what would happen if the next president decides he will no longer defend or enforce Roe vs Wade? Does anyone think president Rubio would be able to get away with that? How about President Christie?
29 comments:
So, if Obama is going to decide not to defend the laws he doesn't like, can I decide not to obey the laws I don't like??
The administration has determined that DOMA is unconstitutional. The President took an oath to faithfully execute the law but he also took an oath to defend the Constitution. I support gay marriage, mostly because it really pisses off the religious Right.
The administration has determined DOMA is unconstitutional?
Well I guess that settles it then. If the king says it's unconstitutional then the other branches of government can go F themselves because the ki... wait what? Is this a monarchy or a dictatorship that we live in?
Definitely a soft tyranny but I'm pretty sure the president can't determine that on his own. I could be wrong on this.....wait no I can't.
Fucking moron.
What's alarming isn't that a sheep like Gary would regurgitate it, but that the AG would say it in the first place. This admin clearly has zero understanding of the Constitution, either that or they despise it.
Well I think maybe the AG is just looking out for HIS PEOPLE.
You would think HIS PEOPLE would be the American people but apparently race trumps nationality for this guy.
race and sexual preference i meant to say.
Holder is gay right? He seems kind of you know....feminine. you know very moody and vindictive.
I thought he was dating Oprah.
Gary,
There are a same number of people who have the same number of strong arguments that Roe V Wade is unconstitutional.
The point is, it has to follow the American processs that protects our freedoms and rights. It can't just be the opinion of the guy in office. Because what if your guy isnt in office? What if the next president takes this action a litte further and says well, "We are going to stop enforcing the miranda rights" or the due process for a search warrant? He could use the reasoning that too many criminals are getting off due to these techincalities?
Actually to add to that previous post.....A previous president already did and we have the Patriot Act as a result. See where I'm going with this?
This is what can happen when we dont follow the system in place.
We lose our rights.
Stay consistent on this. Either the Patriot act is bad and we need to defend our constution on every point OR The president's opnion is law.
Which is it?
Gary, this is exactly why we have rules (the Constitution) to abide by. What I see with the left is that they don't like the rules. Now, there are ways to edit the rules. It's called amendments. This is so fucked up. I am a referee in ice hockey. I will give you an analogy. There is a rule in USA Hockey that sates every player over the squirt level must wear a mouthpiece. Now, as a referee, if I think that bantam players don't need a mouthpiece, should I not enforce the mouthpiece rule? I would be held responsible if a bantam kid got his teeth knocked out because I let him play with a mouthpiece. If you don't like the rules, either petition to change them or DONT PLAY. The left knows they are in the major minority so they can't amend the Constitution because the states would never go for it. That's why the cowards in Wisconsin left the state. They know they don't have the majority so they just stopped the system. Immoral, cowardly, pussy ass infants. Not going to defend the law? Seriously?
Your new found concern for the Constitution, so lacking during the Bush years is touching. No problem with torture or illegal wire taps but Obama declines to defend a law because he thinks it is unconstitutional and you object. And what about all the Bus signing statements where he said he would not obey laws he didn't like?
What are you saying? It seems like you're saying if Bush did it then, it must be OK. Why aren't you saying the President shouldn't do it, if for no other reason than Bush did it? If he's smarter and better why is he making the same mistake?
No matter who did it its wrong.
Gary, you have no idea what my position was during the Bush years, jack ass. I wasn't even posting then. Before you make accusations why don't you make sure you know what you are talking about instead of pulling the Bush line. You have lost all credibility with me. This just confirms that all you do is tote the lib lines. You are a phony. Now get out of here...
what the attorney general did was write a legal memorandum to the speaker of the house outlining numerous examples of legal precedent that shows that discrimination against minority groups has been determined by the courts to be both illegal and unconstitutional. the attorney general made an argument showing that DOMA does exactly that: it overtly discriminates against a minority group, something, again, that has been determined to be unconstitutional. there are currently cases in the system that are doing the same thing the administration is doing: challenging the constitutionality of a law. the president's and the attorney general's stance and decision not to enforce this law is absolutely lawful given the analysis provided by the AG's office. This is only the beginning of a process that may or may not end up at the supreme court (i doubt it because the argument presented by the AG's office is pretty hard to dispute).
one cannot compare this to roe v. wade because roe v. wade, the right of a woman (or anyone else) to privacy with regard to decisions about their own health and wellbeing, is already settled law. it has undergone judicial scrutiny and has been determined to be constitutional by the supreme court of the united states. it's highly unlikely that this be overturned in our lifetime, because, you know, despite their (your) vitriolic rhetoric, most republicans want the right make health and welfare decisions on their own. with no interference from the state.
Oh he wrote a memorandum? Well then that settles it.
Only problem is, his job isn't to write laws, iaccording to the Judiciary Act of 1789, his job is to enforce them.
And whether you like it or not, DOMA passed by margins of 342 to 67 and 85 to 14 in the House and Senate respectively and then signed by President Clinton making it the law of the land.
But Holder wrote a memo...
Anita you are still missing the point. Roe v Wade and the patriot act are examples of laws that are hotly debated. It doesn't matter what side you take. It matters that it is a law.
FISA was a law too. And Bush broke it. Oh and torture was against the law too.
SAMs is spot on and once again Anita shows her ignorance. First it was obamacare and now it is DOMA. This is the law. That's it. It CAN be compared to ROE or any other law.
Anita didn't you say u took some classes to be a paralegal? Maybe you can ask for your money back because they didn't learn you nuthin
the administration has expressed its opinion that the law is unconstitutional. they have provided full offering of legal precedent to support their opinion. they have indicated that they will support a repeal of the law. work to that end has begun in both the house and the senate.
the justice department has essentially said they will not pursue cases in which violation of DOMA is alleged. they have plenty of more important issues to address rather delving into people's bedrooms and private lifestyle decisions.
talk about a red herring. you guys are really getting desparate.
oh, and gary is correct. where were you guys when the bush administration was breaking not only american law, but international laws as well by carrying out systematic torture?
None of them should be arrogantly thumbing their noses at the law, period, on either side.
I'm so tired of "Bush did this..." or "Clinton did this.." as an argument. NONE of them should be taking it upon themselves.
This one is tough because I don't believe in marriage period or the government regulating relationships of any kind between anyone, so I think it is ALL overstepping.
what's wrong with drawing parallels between this president and other presidents and other times in our history as a nation? isn't that what historians and political analysts do every day? and, in fact, aren't our laws based in large part upon precedent?
the aurorans want to play 'gotcha' but they don't want it played against them.
and rhino, there is a big difference between roe v. wade and DOMA. roe v. wade is settled law because it was met with challenges and was upheld by the supreme court. in the DOMA case there are many aspects that conflict with our constitutional rights. ultimately, perhaps, it may go to the supreme court. but again i doubt it.
and you know what, as an american citizen (which, i think, but am not sure, that you are) you have every right to bring a suit against the federal government if you honestly feel that by not acting on suits related to DOMA, the justice department is committing a crime or in anyway infringing on your right not to live next door to a same sex-couple, well then you can bring a suit against the Federal government.
ain't democracy great!!
oh, and by the way, like getlive, you are bonehead as well.
"what's wrong with drawing parallels between this president and other presidents and other times in our history as a nation?"
I see there is this tendency to put energy into things that are not really the issue.
Drawing a parallel is not an argument, is a process of exchanging "gotchas" that ultimately serve no useful purpose.
The argument at hand is the need for a power check process as applied to the office of the president irrespective of regime.
The argument is not: "But Jennifer took a cookie too, so why am I in trouble?" Do you remember that from elementary school? It rests on the desire to avoid taking responsibility or being held accountable.
The sole purpose of these statements is to deflect attention from focused discourse and to instead debate the merits of cross-demonization.
Now again, my point is NO president should be permitted, whether I agree with the issue or not, to overstep.
"I don't believe in marriage period"
Hear, hear.
anita I always find it fascinating how you make up your own arguments.
My argument in this case is and has been....the president shouldn't be able to pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce or defend. If you want to marry a woman and you want to sue the federal government for that right then go ahead. I never said you shouldn't or couldn't.
Finally, as I said before you clearly don't know shit about the law. The fact that Roe has "met the challenges" doesn't mean it's somehow More of a law than DOMA.
If you don't understand that then once again you're just not intelligent enough for me to discuss this with.
there are two concepts we are dealing with here.
#1 ... ENFORCE. the administration has NOT said it will cease to enforce DOMA. it will continue to enforce the law.
#2. ... DEFEND. the administration has said it will no longer DEFEND IT IN COURT because they have presented legal precedent to indicate that the law can be and probably will be judged to be unconstitutional.
but since it is law on the books, it will be enforced.
i'm not a lawyer, nor do i claim to be a lawyer. last i heard neither are you.
but, finally, and more importantly, as i said before, you CLEARLY are a bonehead, or perhaps even worse.
That's interesting Anita. Maybe you should go back to your comment where YOU said the president and AG stance And decision not to ENFORCE this law is absolutely lawful.
Or don't. I don't care anymore.
i am woman enough to admit when i make a mistake. and i did so there.
Post a Comment