Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
President Obama's brazenly calculated move to unilaterally abandon the federal Defense of Marriage Act showcases his attitude that he is above the law.
DOMA defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of all federal laws, rules and regulations (Section 3). It specifies that no state shall be required to honor laws of other states that treat same-sex relationships as legal marriages -- effectively carving out an exception to the Constitution's full faith and credit clause (Section 2).
Congress passed this law by enormous majorities (Senate 85-14, House 342-67) in response to political pressure in some states to redefine marriage, especially a Hawaiian court's decision suggesting the Hawaii Constitution conferred the right to same-sex marriage. Congress was worried that, among other things, same-sex couples living in other states might go to Hawaii to marry and demand that their home states recognize their marriages.
It seems that in enacting this law, the federal government was quite scrupulous in deferring to the sovereignty of the states by pronouncing a federal standard for marriage applicable to federal laws but not presuming to encroach on states' authority to set their own standards. It affirmed the states' prerogative by providing that their marriage laws would not be abrogated or diminished by conflicting laws of other states but did not preclude them from honoring, if they so choose, laws of other states validating same-sex marriages.
During his presidential campaign, Obama stated that he did not support same-sex marriage but that he did believe that DOMA should be repealed. He gave no hint that he would take it upon himself to issue a presidential edict, without a congressional bill placed before him, forbidding the executive branch from enforcing the law. But that is precisely what he did this week.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama had concluded that the administration would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA. Holder acknowledged that the Justice Department had previously defended DOMA in court under a "rational basis standard." (It's interesting they chose Section 3, because many legal scholars believe Section 2 is more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.) But he said Obama now believes that "a more heightened standard of scrutiny" should be required for laws involving same-sex marriage -- the same standard that applies to "laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination."
To understand the magnitude of Obama's action, we must again consider the above-cited fact that both chambers of Congress passed DOMA by overwhelming majorities reflecting the will of the people that marriage be defined, for legal and policy purposes, as it always had been. Also, no federal appellate court has ruled the statute unconstitutional.
As he has in so many other areas (EPA, the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the authority of the other two coequal branches of government to make himself, in effect, not just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial authority.
Holder admitted in his statement that the Justice Department "has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," but not otherwise.
But it is preposterous to suggest there are no reasonable arguments to defend the statute when 5,000 years of human history and the express act of Congress fly in the face of that statement. According to professor John Yoo, "in the few cases that the Supreme Court has heard gay rights cases, it has never adopted (the standard Obama is applying)."
In announcing a new standard, Obama claims that the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since DOMA was passed. You know the drill: Society has "evolved." That's highly dubious in view of the fact that even people in some liberal states have expressed their preference for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Further, it is not Obama's place to make this determination, especially when the people have already done so in such emphatic terms through their duly elected congressmen. If the people want the law changed, they can lobby their congressmen to change it or marshal their lawyers to argue their position in actual cases before the courts.
In response to leftists arguing that President George W. Bush also declined to enforce a federal statute, Yoo says that Obama's action is distinguishable. Bush did so in cases in which he was resisting congressional intrusions into the executive's constitutional authorities in the area of national security. Here there are no alleged encroachments on executive authority; it's just that Obama has a different opinion than the American people and has decided to implement it unilaterally.
So now we have an imperial president who is refusing to enforce a law passed by powerful congressional majorities while persisting in enforcing a law (Obamacare) that two federal courts have already invalidated. The only common denominator is that Obama believes he is the law.
---
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
February 25, 2011 @ 9:16 am
This is exactly why Obama should be challenged on his elgibility to be POTUS. He can and should be removed from office if he cannot/will not prove it. Secondly a strong push to make him prove elgibility will keep him busy so he can’t screw up the country any more than he already has. What is it they say “the best defense, is a good offense”? Obama knows this well. He and his czars are attacking on so many levels we cannot focus on a single issue. We need to take him on, using his own tactics. Fight fire with fire!
February 25, 2011 @ 10:14 am
I agree with you. He needs to be Impeached. We need NOT to allow him to set the precedence that ineligibles and illegals are eligible to run for president.
February 25, 2011 @ 12:11 pm
I agree as well.
If the President can unilaterally dismiss what was enacted Constitutionally, then NO laws are worth the paper they are written on.
It would be interesting to see how Obama would react if about 125 Million American taxpayers and 80+% of American businesses decided that they thought the IRS was un-Constitutional and therefore they would no longer be sending any money to the US Government.
February 25, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
If I recall correctly, a Supreme Court ‘conference meeting’ on the eligibility matter is coming up the middle of March. If this constant ‘thumbing his nose’ at America, Americans and the RULE OF LAW doesn’t help the justices determine that this MUST be heard – and a THOROUGH investigation into the matter MUST be held, then I don’t hold out much hope for our country to continue to exist.
Furthermore, I believe both justices appointed by the president being investigated MUST recuse themselves!
February 25, 2011 @ 9:19 am
Here is a case in which the Attorney General has arbitrarily decided not to enforce a law passed by Congress. When this happens, why can’t we as citizens decide to arbitrarily not obey any law we disagree with? If the attorney general has a problem with a law, he or the President should bring this issue to Congress. Certainly in this “era of civility” this is possible. If it is possible, then it SHOULD happen, lest our society start sliding down a hill into chaos.
February 25, 2011 @ 12:36 pm
Precisely! Law is law until deemed otherwise by the ONLY court authorized to do so. And they have NOT done so.
Frankly, based on Obama’s decision to unilaterally declare DOMA un-Constitutional, then I believe it is time for American citizens to do the same regarding the IRS. And while we are at it, we can disregard the Constitution as to Obama’s election by simply not recognizing him as “legal”.
The perfect start on the path to anarchy. And to think, it was the President who initiated it! What a legacy!
February 25, 2011 @ 9:21 am
And, Obama is so blatantly arrogant about just ignoring the laws on the books that he doesn’t like or want to enforce. Eric Holder is a “yes” man for Obama and he is doing the dirty work as are others in the cabinet like Salazar. Both Obama and Holder should be “fired”…or impeached, for Obama.
I just hope that the American public is getting wise enough to see all of this and gets with it and votes out this well trained subversive that we have as our President. It is easy to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is the American way, but it is just too obvious that he is dangerous, not only for our country, but for the world at large.
Not only has he managed to wreck the financial health of the country, but he is so inept at foreign policy that he is fumbling the ball there, and is doing all of this while he is undermining the Constitution and basic freedom and rights of the American people.
February 25, 2011 @ 10:45 am
JUST AS JANET RENO WAS A “YES PERSON” FOR CLINTON! ATTORNEYS GENERAL RARELY-IF EVER- OBEY THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!
February 25, 2011 @ 9:38 am
Let’s not forget to pray for America. God blessed America with enormous resources (many of which we are “preserving”–I am a loss as to for what) and gave us founding fathers to create a government for any by We the People. We have always needed God to guide us, and now the time has come for Him to “help” even more.
February 25, 2011 @ 9:44 am
Amen
February 25, 2011 @ 9:46 am
There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, unlike married Straight couples, married Gay couples become “UN-married” if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the “Full Faith & Credit” clause. Face it: There’s no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
February 25, 2011 @ 10:33 am
There are two points here:
1) the Executive branch can not just ignore a law that is passed by the Legislative branch, and signed by the Executive branch, and HAS NOT been ruled by the third branch (judicial) ‘unconstitutional.’ If you allow that, we as citizens should be able to ignore laws we do not believe are constitutional. Hey, I think that law is ‘unconstitutional’ and I will not obey it? That’s what anarchy is all about.
The President is equal in power to the other two branches … not superior to either. To assume this unilateral position is a over-reach of his powers as enumerated and specified in the Constitution. IF DOJ does not enforce the law, they and the President have failed to do their Constitutional duties and that is a impeachable offense (high crimes and misdemeanors ~ specifically not supporting and defending the Constitution as written and intended).
2) We are by our founding documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution) given our laws and powers by both constitutional law and the laws of nature. The Constitution does not deal with Marriage (the XIV deals with equal rights of men and women, not of Marriage AND specifically was designed to grant ex-slaves equality NOT of marriage) The Declaration of Independence deals with the ‘Laws of Nature,’ but again not Marriage (which is a religious concept and the Federal Government shall not either support, nor deny individuals or the states these powers unto themselves).
Laws of nature deal with Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness granted outside man’s laws. Gay ‘Marriage’ does not promote life or the sustainability of the Nation (and laws of the Nation promote the future of that Nation ~ i.e. it has an interest in its self preservation). The test being two gays on a island (in nature) are a dead species … without artificial means (outside nature) the species dies due to inability to self sustain its self. You can pursue happiness all you want, but a marriage is made of two who promote (procreate) the existence of the species and grow the wealth of the Nation by that union. Artificial means are outside that ‘natural’ law.
February 25, 2011 @ 10:51 am
It’s downright frightening to hear U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder suggest that moral disapproval of homosexual ‘marriages’ is somehow unconstitutional. What’s next, federal lawsuits against states with man-woman marriage laws and federal investigations of individuals who believe marriage is only for a man and a woman?”
Since Proposition 22 passed in California in 2000 – defining marriage as between one man and one woman – people have attacked the voters’ decision from all sides. They say that this definition of marriage is unconstitutional and backward thinking.
Here’s what we know:
God ordained marriage is between one man and one woman.
The history of this country was built upon the foundation of marriage and Biblical principles.
The traditional institution of marriage is the best institution for raising children.
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 NKJV
February 25, 2011 @ 12:31 pm
I cannot think of a more cogent and concise explanation to someone who believes that everyone is equal when in fact that is only true in a persons ability to have life, liberty, and pursue happiness. Life is not at issue in this debate. Liberty to BE a person who engages in extinctual behavior is also not at issue. As for the pursuit of happiness, that is only applicable where self is concerned. All three of these freedoms are available to them, so no deprivation is evident.
Government is not obliged to provide a driving licence to a blind person although that person might want one. Nor is government required to free a person from prison simply because they desire their freedom. Issuing a “marriage” licence to gays, simply because they want to consider themselves “equal” through matrimony, serves no useful nor beneficial purpose to society, therefore not granting same is not unlawful.
Laws have always been based on the needs of a society and have been done so upon the majority being governed by such. There is NO societal need here, nor a supporting majority, therefore issuing a “marriage” licence is, in all manners, a non-starter.
Thanks, miguelsaavadera! You did an excellent commentary on the issue. I doubt, however, that Chuck Anziulewicz and his Gay community will ever get the difference between what THEY deem un-Constitutional (as opposed to the final arbiters on law), nor will they understand that a duly enacted law IS law UNTIL declared null and void by those same arbiters. Which the Gay community fortunately are not.
February 25, 2011 @ 10:01 am
Yes, this is O’s end game because constitutional govt is the only form of govt, like ours, that makes everyone under the law! Most and perhaps all other froms of govts put the law makers out side the law. So O is turning us into at best a banana republic and at worst into an Islamic state? Of course CONgress has been placing themselvs outside the law, like SS and medical care, for decades.
However God, or some other voice out of the past has given the nation an opportuity to end this ruthless assault by O and the liberals on the rule of law in America. This opportunity lies in the law of the land, the Constitution, which lists being a native born citizen as a requirement to be president. There is no proof he has a legitimate birth certificate. Thus a ruling by the SC, like in Honduras, that he is illegible to be president should allow the sheriff to evict him from the White House and escort him to the a plane for exile to an Islamic country. For his own safety.
In other words if the federal govt returns to it’s legitimate duty, obligation, of enforcing it’s share of the rule of law O will go away in a plane ride.
Under our Constitution sharia law is illegal, as are dictatorships, communism, etc.. And under the CR Act of 64/65 union closed shops, etc., which discriminate against those that don’t want to be in unions and denies employment in some cases or charges a fee, aka tax, for a person to work in some places, must be illegal. It could very well be against someone’s religion to not be in a union. And you can’t discriminate against someone because of their relgion, sex, race. But you can discriminate against any and all of us who are not elelcted officials!
Govt, liberals, trying to play God has brought us in to this crisis. Ousting O from office, using the rule of law is our equivalent of getting rid of Mubark, which is also a potential form of govt change. Our form of govt is fine, is great eventhough O went over and apologized for us being a free country, and should not be changed, should not perish. Especially because of some tin horn dictator with banana republicc on his mind.
February 25, 2011 @ 12:35 pm
“This opportunity lies in the law of the land, the Constitution, which lists being a native born citizen as a requirement to be president.”
No, no, no! One must be a NATURAL-BORN U.S. Citizen to be eligible to be President, NOT a native-born U.S. Citizen. Article II Section 1 Paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Barack Hussein Obama may or may not be a native-born U.S. Citizen, but he is NOT a natural-born U.S. Citizen. This is because his Father was a) a Kenyan National, b) a British Subject at the time of Obama’s birth, and c) NEVER a U.S. Citizen. Furthermore, his mother was a minor when he was born, and therefore unable to confer U.S. Citizenship onto Obama. She also married an Inonesian national by the name of Pak Lolo Soetoro when Barack was six, and moved to Indonesia with Soetoro, taking six-year-old Barack with her. Barack Obama was enrolled in an Indonesian school under the name Barry Soetoro. He was then sent to Hawaii at the age of ten to live with his maternal grandparents. He also travelled to Pakistan at the age of 20 in 1981 at a time when one could not do so on a U.S. Passport. It is unknown when he retook his birth name Barack Hussein Obama II and affirmed his U.S. Citizenship.
February 25, 2011 @ 10:13 am
For years the Left has been plotting against everything that is good and true. The right needs to stand up now. Onward Christian Soldiers. God did not call us to be obedient to an immoral government. I first began to recognize the beginnings of this in 1980. I continued to accelerate my comment even at the risk of sounding crazy. Along the line, more have caught on. This is a call to arms. This was a nobel nation and they have reduced it to a mockery around the world. I doubt that the democratic voters even know that Dems are trying to reduce our morality in order to set up a world government. We have to stop this. There are more in the moral majority than in the left, at least I believe there is. Catholic churches worldwide are experiencing regrowth. We must continue to be an army of informants. No violence, no foul language, no impropriety of any kind. Just knowlegable informants. We must salvage this nation for our children and grandchildren. Even my own children who used to think I was blowing this out of proportion now see the writing on the wall. We need to talk to our kids, their friends, our friends; anyone who will listen and even those who are disgusted with our conversation. When it comes to pass they will remember.
Keep on talking.
February 25, 2011 @ 10:29 am
Re C A’s comments.
Perhaps in the first place federal law overrides state or local laws, not the other way around. Then there are laws that prevemt minors from getting married, and other circumstances. Do you want to bring sharia law here an allow men to marry girls as young as maybe 3?
The attempt to converrt our legal system from a moral based one to a civil rights based system has failed and brought us close to social chaos. The reality is no one has “the right” to get married. If one did they could ask another to marry them and if were told no way, the denier could have a suit filed against them.
Life is not an enless cafeteria of my rights vs their rights or this is my right so you give it to me. If something is a person’s right then to have meaning that right has to be given by som eother entity. Like the right to vote, to assemble, etc. These are given to us by the fed govt, not by a country judge, or another person.
Is it my right to have medical care? To have a job? To made $50/hour? If so, who gave me or you these “rights”? It might be my moral obligation to help the poor, but it is not their right to demand money or help from me. That is robbery.
February 25, 2011 @ 2:15 pm
Where did this idea that federal law overrides state law come from? The Constitution specifies limited powers for the federal government and everything not specified is reserved to the states or the people. The federal government exists at the pleasure of the states, not the other way around. Also, rights are endowed by our creator. No one “gives” us any rights.
February 25, 2011 @ 10:35 am
Well people as we move along here in the last days of man on earth, we come up against another are you on GOD’s side or the world’s side of things. Marriage was created by GOD and GOD himself said it is between one man and one woman. So which side are you on? The world or GOD? This is what it all boils down to with the whole homosexual agenda and the people in Washington and the rest of the world who have no fear of GOD. I know some will think that I am just another religious nut spewing out hatred against homosexuality, but ask yourself the question. If GOD is really real, where am I going to spend eternity? We are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of GOD, but we have a savior in Christ Jesus who will forgive and grant us salvation. All of this and more that is happening in the world was written in scripture thousands of years ago and you are seeing it come to pass before your very eyes. Just search and you will find the truth, please before it is too late. The things that are happening now in this country would have never been allowed when you were a kid, or in your parent’s time. Why should evil be allowed to triumph now?
February 25, 2011 @ 10:37 am
Something else to consider is that in Arab nations a male can have as many wives as he can afford. So his ignoring the one man/one woman law would appease both the Gay (sex perverts) and the Muslims (woman enslavers).
I’m thinking though that Muslim law probably forbids same sex encounters, so I wonder who he’ll side with later if Shariah Law comes into play? Will he then favor execution of gays?…or as a global socialist, both…
Congress and the Judicial don’t realize Obama has already taken over. When you look at the overall picture he controls the government agencies and utilizing them combined with executive orders, the laws of congress mean nothing to him…. just something to laugh at, while thinking they are so stupid not realizing what they do means nothing. Once he imposes martial law then the states will be basically done away with, and all the Czars (under his command) will control each area. He has been appointing two types of Czars, one type to govern the masses and the other type to control business/resources.
February 25, 2011 @ 11:07 am
Is this ‘the shot across the bow’?
An absolute example of ‘in your face’ malfeasance?
A total contradiction of the Oath of Office?
There should be only one response … IMPEACHMENT!
For failure to act, as the LAW requires, says that Congress has totally relinquished its role in maintaining our Constitution.
February 25, 2011 @ 11:29 am
Here’s a legal loophole. Obama cannot be impeached under the law. Only an ELIGIBLE president can be impeached. Obama can only be removed if and when declared ineligible to be POTUS, which probably will not occur anytime soon. Democrats will not turn on one of their own and Republicans simply do not have the courage. (Maybe the TEA Party will confront the issue.)
Side note. My personal opinion is that those judges who refuse to address Obama’s eligibility because of legal “standing” should be removed from the bench, IMMEDIATELY. Exceptions to standing, and other situations, exist and can be found in law journals; specifically, state and federal publications that report court decisions. Google it for yourself.
February 25, 2011 @ 11:08 am
IMPEACHMENT is way too good for O’Damnit! He should be arrested, TRIED FOR HIGH TREASON, convicted . . . and receive swift, sure punishment as expeditiously as humanly possible!
February 25, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
It’s too bad that the constitution only calls for impeachment. In this manner there is NO WAY we will be able to remove him from office by impeachment. The dems in the senate will NOT vote for impeachment, so he will get a pass and continue destroying our country. The courts have to start enforcing their rulings through fines and prison sentences for non-compliance. I fear it has gone TOO FAR and we are lost. There are too many people who will let Obama get away with his tricks and by the time conservatives are in power the country will be too far down the slope for us to recover.”G0D bless America. We remember how it used to be.”
February 25, 2011 @ 11:12 am
This is not a wild idea from Obama. It is a calculated part of his plan to destroy OUR country. History shows hat EVERY nation that has accepted and/or embraced the homosexual agenda has fallen, sometimes by invasion. Countries that tried to eliminate traditional marriage discovered quickly that traditional marriage is the foundation of any society: When marriage is eliminated, chaos rules. That’s the real reason Obama has abandoned DOMA. There’s no quicker way to destroy a nation than to destroy the concept of marriage.
February 25, 2011 @ 11:22 am
Long Live KING OBAMA!
In some other country.
February 25, 2011 @ 11:23 am
I agree with Mort_f. There is only one way to end the maddness in the White House. Obama does not understand or perhaps refuses to acknowledge the separation of powers among three branches of government. He declares laws, duly passed by congress and signed by a former (democrat) President, unconstitutional; he ignores the courts when they say that a moritorium on drilling for oil is outside of the President’s authority; he plows ahead on Obamacare after the Court has declared it to be unconstitutional; he creates a shadow government of czars that are loyal to him and not accountable to the American People. If his lips are moving, he is lying. He is a constant state of violating his oath of office. When does his distain for the country become an impeachable offense? Where is Congress on this whole thing. It seems to me that the Republican leadership in the House is still bound to some old boy network. They need to get their heads out of the place where the sun does not shine.
February 25, 2011 @ 11:33 am
Would you expect anything else from someone who won’t seal the border and sues Arizona!
February 25, 2011 @ 11:34 am
Welcome to the banana republic.
February 25, 2011 @ 11:38 am
When the law is obeyed or disobeyed by our “leaders” depending on their own whims or notions of right and wrong; then there is no law, only the rule of those “leaders” acting on their own personal belief systems. Whether benevolent or not; that is TYRANNY! When will our elected representatives and our courts stand up and uphold the oath they took to defend the Constitution? When will they stand up and say “ENOUGH”? The President seems only to obey those laws that he agrees with. What would happen if everyone did that? There would be chaos, anarchy would rule. This Nation needs to return to the rule of law. No one, not even the President should be above the law.
February 25, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
This is the more important issue here. DOMA is just the catalyst. The real issue is that a President would ignore ANY law for any reason. If he doesn’t like a law, he should work to change it, but he has no right to simply declare it null and void. That’s a matter for the courts. If he can ignore one law, he can ignore all of them. By so doing, he is de facto ignoring the Constitution. That makes him a dictator and leaves the rest of us in serious trouble. Whether or not the Senate would vote to convict, the house MUST impeach. Failure to do so makes our Representatives complicet in the crime. IMPEACH NOW!
February 25, 2011 @ 11:48 am
This is a great example of how skewed the world view of some hard line conservatives has become. Obama is the “imperial” president, because he refuses to enforce one provision from a domestic law passed 15 years ago, but George Bush can launch two wars without an act of war from Congress, and deserves no such moniker. The latter war was undertaken under the auspices of defending the UN Resolutions, even though the UN didn’t itself sanction such a defense. It’s like if I say I’m going to inflict violence on someone to defend my family’s honor, even though my family refuses to endorse such an action. So Bush can act in a manner that is arguably both unconstitutional and imperial, AND directly kills thousands of people, but Obama is the emperor.
That said, I think Obama should enforce the provision, but the idea that this action shows that he thinks he ”is” the law is just foolish and grossly unfair rhetoric. The fact that John Yoo (Bush’s former employee) thinks that Bush’s actions are justifiable and Obama’s are not is interesting, because no doubt Yoo is a brilliant legal scholar. But by only citing him, I have no idea if other equally brilliant scholars who were not employees of Bush agree with that analysis. Even within Bush’s own justice department there were factions that adamantly disagreed with Yoo’s understanding of the legality of torture.
And are any of the ardent defenders of the Constitution that read this site concerned that DOA was a federal law that made an “exception” to the Constitution? I thought the Constitution was supposed to be altered through amendments that have to pass through state legislatures as well. The fact that no federal appellate court has ruled it unconstitutional YET may give perfect comfort to some, but it strikes me as a bit too convenient.
February 25, 2011 @ 12:11 pm
This is not the only instant of this administrations failure to up hold the law. There have been others. Such as the failure to prosecute in the case of the New Black Panther Parties voter intimidation case to cite just one such example. And if you wish to cite President George W. Bush going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan; remember he had bi-partisan resolutions from Congress supporting his actions. And you may just as well cite similar actions by other presidents, such as President Truman’s “Police Action in Korea”. Even so to justify an act of questionable legality such as the one taken by President Obama by his refusal to defend the DOA by attempting to show that other presidents have done similar things is flat out wrong. And an attempt to change the subject. Bad behavior cannot be justified by pointing to other bad behavior. Saying that every bodies doing it doesn’t make something right!
February 25, 2011 @ 2:57 pm
ScottL, you simply have your facts wrong regarding President Bush’s authority to go to war. Congress, while not “declaring” war in the same sense as the WWII declaration, did vote him authority to take the actions taken in Afghanistan and Iraq. You need to check that out. That, however, is not the same thing as unilaterally declaring a law as unconstitutional. Only the courts can do that. In the meantime, the President is obliged to enforce the law. He has NO wiggle room in this matter.
February 25, 2011 @ 11:51 am
can we just pick the laws we think are constitutional? isnt that called anarchy???? this usurper has to be removed from office…where the hell are the people in position to do this?? did they forget their oath to this country? God help us…
February 25, 2011 @ 12:21 pm
To begin with, let’s be little more careful using terms like ‘the will of the people’. There is no factual entity ‘the people’, it is a made up term by lawyers to gain compliance from actual men. Congress does not represent ‘the people’, it is supposed to represent the republics which then represent ‘the people’, but even that is a misnomer as congress represents banking interests and corporations, just like Obama, as do the governors and state legislatures as they are all party loyal first and ‘the people’ loyal when it compliments their agendas.
Now, it’s nice that we are just now figuring out that the executive banking president can just create, negate or change any law anytime he feels like it (under bank supervision). It’s called Executive Orders. These nice little kingly decrees are in the realm of 13000+ total issuance now. That’s 13000 legal statutes placed upon men in America without sanction, review or critique. While there are surely lawyers abound willing to explain how these are a viable part of the governmental system, they are not even mentioned in the constitution or amendments, and are in direct violation of the legislative process that is clearly outlined in that document. Sounds like the constitution is not really in effect to me, and this is but one of myriad examples of how it is not in effect or a supreme law in the least.
When the body politic, judges or whoever swear to uphold the constitution, it is not the constitution displayed in the national archives. There is another constitution that is hidden and secretive, meaning it is an outright lie, meaning that all of these people have proven themselves to be dishonorable scam artists. They are strangers that will protect the continual flow of capital to the rich even if it means the death of men, the united states of America, or the earth.
Obama is the current fraud in charge, but this whole scam has been going on for a long time, 100 years at least. When you wave the flag of the elephant and decry the donkey, you are still supporting 50% of your demise, and that 50% is in complete support of the other 50%, so really you are 100% in support of the anti-constitution government called Federal and its parties of failure and extortion.
February 25, 2011 @ 12:22 pm
Imperial President to be sure!
His Czars skirt the Constitutional requirement that Congress “advise and consent” his cabinet appointments.
He has flouted Federal Court rulings to remove the ban on offshore drilling and that Obamacare is un-Constitutional.
He has injected himself in affairs of the states of Arizona and Wisconsin with the full force of his bully pulpit, the Justice Department or Organizing For America.
He has used every trick and gimmick imaginable to thwart the expressed will of the people and he continues to dismiss the surging wave of dissent with incredible disdain.
He has shown tremendous condescension – “the campaign is over John, we won”.
He pouts when he loses and he crows when he wins! Is this mature leadership?
All I see is a slick Chicago-style politician with zero leadership experience and not a lot of street smarts. He appears lost in a job way bigger than he ever imagined and he is showing no signs of being able to grow into it after two years. He stubbornly clings to his ego and his ideology and the people be damned!.
Thankfully, his egotism and lack of adaptability will keep him on the path to defeat in 2012 and that is necessary if we intend to undo the damage he has wrought!
The Last Jump – A Novel of World War II
http://www.thelastjump.com
Some proceeds donated to charity.
February 25, 2011 @ 1:16 pm
I think I figured it out. The 13 trillion dollars went to pay off Congress, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court Judges, most of the appointed judges and the Media, to ignore the ramifications of Obama’s actions. Ignore everything related to exposing the OBAMA lies or actions if not approved for release so the media won’t publish it and “Washington” won’t discuss it.
February 25, 2011 @ 1:31 pm
as a Christian, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. As a Lawyer living in a pluralistic society, defending this position is becoming more dificult. It doesn’t matter how overwhlmingly a law is passed, a the end of the day, it must withstand consitutional scruitiny. If it is a good law, it will be ultimatley upheld by SCOTUS. It doesn’t matter if DOJ defends it, it has to be a law that doesn’t discriminnate
February 25, 2011 @ 2:06 pm
All well and good… however, the definition of marriage is “between husband and wife”, not between husband and husband or wife and wife.
You cannot change the meanings of words after the fact to make them mean something that they do not.
There IS NO discrimination in DOMA. If Obama thought for one minute that there was, he’d allow the Supreme Court to say so. His pullback from defending the law gives the lie to that.
February 25, 2011 @ 2:30 pm
Sometimes “Discrimination” is a very good thing!
We should discriminate against that which is evil, against nature, against the national consensus of morality, and against the national consensus of reason..
I don’t buy the garbage that Courts and their “Activists Judges” try to pass-off as “Law.”
February 25, 2011 @ 1:54 pm
Our country is not being run by Americans! We seem to be under FOREIGN RULE! The Provocateur in the White House is nothing but a political activist, a thug, and a community organizer. We don’t really know who this man is or where he comes from! He is an unknown entity.. These are strange and frightening times, as none of us have ever seen “the likes” of this man. Strangely, everyone seems to be PARALYZED, unable to deal with his evil usurping of powers that were never meant for any one man!
He is a LAWLESS DICTATOR with total disregard for our individual Freedoms, our Constitution, our Rule of Law, and our form of government. Not only does he show contempt for all these, but he shows a contempt for the American people and ”the American Way of Life.” This seems like a very FOREIGN attitude, an attitude that would promote a “One World Government!” No one can diminish his impact, and ability to advance the destruction of our country… American is the only country standing in the way of that “One World Government.” Does this have anything to do with the appearance of a stranger in our midst… Does it have anything to do with the fact that this stranger speaks out of one side of his mouth, while doing the exact opposite behind the backs of the people….
He only needs a little more time to finish his appointed task…