PDA

View Full Version : Obama, the DOMA and overstepping bounds. Is anyone worried?


hikingonthru
February 25th, 2011, 04:23 PM
I was wondering who else besides me is very worried about this jassankle Obama and his "Executive Declarations" on the constitutionality of DOMA.

Now, whether or not you believe in gay marriage or not should not be an issue. Let us put that aside. Let's say, for argument's sake, Obama has issued an order that Widgets and not consitutional when there is a congressionally instituted federal law stating that Widgets are legal. Not only that, let us say that a president then orders his Justice Dept. to stop defending widgets...when there are in fact several instances of litigation pending in which the defense of Widgets rests on the Justice Dept. The Justice Dept...which is supposed to defend the interests of the US when it is sued....is now ordered by the president to NOT do this anymore.

The brief states"
"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of widgets, as appliedto legally married widget couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination. Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.

Who in the name of the world is the President to do such a thing? Where in the executive duties does interpretation and disenactment of congressional law fall?
Render an opinion? sure...he is still a citizen. But to employ his Executive office to stop the Justice dept. from enforcing a law the HE HAS DECIDED is unconstitutinal??? PEOPLE...THIS IS DICTATORSHIP!!!!

In another key section of the announcement, DOJ says:

" We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation. "

So, the Pres (if you can call him that) and his Atty. General are going to issue an ORDER that the Justice Dept. is to NOT defend a congressionally approved federal law b/c HE HAS CONCLUDED it is unconstitutional but they are going to see to it that the interests of the US are represented? Can anyone say DOUBLESPEAK??? Does this not sound like "1984" to anyone????

Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States plainly outlines the responsibilities of the Exective branch.

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

CONGRESS MAKES AND REPEALS LAWS!!!! NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!! THERE IS A PROCESS!!! WHY DID HE NOT GO THROUGH IT???

A: He is a megalomaniac who thinks the country and the world belong to him.

So you say, "Well, I like widgets and I think widgets should have the same marital rights as everyone." SO? Do we excuse abuse of power and overstepping of bounds b/c we it works for something we agree with? (That is "the ends justifies the means" kind of thinking. Hitler had that sort of thinking.) Perhaps you do not care..."so what...just a bunch of widgets...longs as they widget over there away from me."

What about the precedent it sets? What happens when later on some president decides that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional??? Can you see the potential tragic ramifications. This nation is starting to come apart at the seams....fueled by immoral leaders and complacent citizenry. (You see, this is what happens when we allow "moral relativism" creep in and everyone "makes their own truth"....it is happening in the Oval Office right now.)

And if think the president is doing the "widget community" some sort of huge favor, ask yourself, "If Widgets were so important to the President, why did he not try to do something about it when he had a democrat majority house and senate the first two years? Moreover, why didn't the President to try to do something about this when he was a senator? Why is he waiting until Congress is out of session to do this?"

No matter what side of the political aisle you are on...this ought to scare the bejinkers out of you!!!!

FAADAN
February 25th, 2011, 04:29 PM
Some are saying it is an impeachable offense to not defend laws passed by Congress in the courts.

Fried Squash
February 25th, 2011, 04:40 PM
It doesn't scare me, but it does make me very angry. That's why we need a Pres. that spent most of his time growing up in this country. He might understand how this country is suppose to work. Just remember God has a plan. No need to be scared, but be prepared.

faitzfunny
February 25th, 2011, 04:40 PM
"Oh my God, marriage is no longer being defended!
Did you hear that, gays? Attack! Attack! Attack!" -- Jon Stewart

LOL !!!! :rolleyes:

hikingonthru
February 25th, 2011, 04:47 PM
"Oh my God, marriage is no longer being defended!
Did you hear that, gays? Attack! Attack! Attack!" -- Jon Stewart

LOL !!!! :rolleyes:

Ok...we get it..ur gay friendly. Now, quit being silly. Focus on the issue of Presidential abuse of power and overstepping of the executive branch.

What do you think about it???

Ohiorganic
February 25th, 2011, 04:50 PM
If you married people haven't been dragged from your homes by the gay hoards, it's just a matter of time :D:p:D
http://www.theonion.com/articles/marauding-gay-hordes-drag-thousands-of-helpless-ci,19325/

they are coming so put on something nice :D

robbie
February 25th, 2011, 04:50 PM
"Oh my God, marriage is no longer being defended!
Did you hear that, gays? Attack! Attack! Attack!" -- Jon Stewart

LOL !!!! :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's kind of a funny issue. Most people are not gay, so no worries when it comes to people marrying and having children. I wonder how many people have considered the fact that gay people are the result of heterosexual relationships.

faitzfunny
February 25th, 2011, 04:55 PM
Ok...we get it..ur gay friendly. Now, quit being silly. Focus on the issue of Presidential abuse of power and overstepping of the executive branch.

What do you think about it???

I'm not gay friendly... I'm LOVE friendly

I think I have NO RIGHT whatsoever to say who marries and who doesn't.
How pompous of me to think I ever could !
Nor does anyone else. What happens between 2 consenting adults is not my
or anyone else's business.

What abuse of power ??? what overstepping ?? I thought he was overstepping by getting involved in the first place. I think it is 100% unconstitutional to permit some to marry and not others. It is, afterall, the pursuit of happiness. Should I tell you who to love ? I just thought... hey ! I can say it's against God's plan for interracial people to marry... do you think I have that right ? Don't say it's different. It's the same. It's discrimination based on race instead of gender.

by the way,
I am against hetero marriages based on property and power.

nedwina
February 25th, 2011, 04:59 PM
It's not tyranny, it's pragmatism. Pragmatism, and his job description: to uphold the Constitution.

There are a number of DOMA lawsuits on the docket that will chew up time & money, and be lost anyway. Time & money that we simply don't have to waste on a weak "morality" based law that will be overturned by the Supremes when it gets there.

All Obama is doing, is saying: "Let's cut to the chase, and stop defending it."

Because it is indefensable. It is a loathesome, pandering law that violates other Constitutional protections. It's time to let it go.

As to the Executive Branch overstepping its bounds, you can thank GWB for paving the way on that. Back during his administration Dems blinked, screamed, & didn't like his antics. But eventually the pendulum swings. And look who's enjoying some executive overreaching now?

Drew Dubious
February 25th, 2011, 05:03 PM
As to the Executive Branch overstepping its bounds, you can thank GWB for paving the way on that. Back during his administration Dems blinked, screamed, & didn't like his antics. But eventually the pendulum swings. And look who's enjoying some executive overreaching now?


Sad yet true

puttgirl
February 25th, 2011, 05:11 PM
I'm sure the law is unconstitutional and discriminatory. I know, you're going to say if he gets away with this, then what else will Obama do? Then, I'd say, c'mon-if some antiquated laws are the worse he digs up, I'm definitely not worried.

Sister Fearless
February 25th, 2011, 05:40 PM
I was wondering who else besides me is very worried about this jassankle Obama and his "Executive Declarations" on the constitutionality of DOMA.

Now, whether or not you believe in gay marriage or not should not be an issue. Let us put that aside. Let's say, for argument's sake, Obama has issued an order that Widgets and not consitutional when there is a congressionally instituted federal law stating that Widgets are legal. Not only that, let us say that a president then orders his Justice Dept. to stop defending widgets...when there are in fact several instances of litigation pending in which the defense of Widgets rests on the Justice Dept. The Justice Dept...which is supposed to defend the interests of the US when it is sued....is now ordered by the president to NOT do this anymore.

The brief states"
"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of widgets, as appliedto legally married widget couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the Presidents determination. Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.

Who in the name of the world is the President to do such a thing? Where in the executive duties does interpretation and disenactment of congressional law fall?
Render an opinion? sure...he is still a citizen. But to employ his Executive office to stop the Justice dept. from enforcing a law the HE HAS DECIDED is unconstitutinal??? PEOPLE...THIS IS DICTATORSHIP!!!!

In another key section of the announcement, DOJ says:

" We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation. "

So, the Pres (if you can call him that) and his Atty. General are going to issue an ORDER that the Justice Dept. is to NOT defend a congressionally approved federal law b/c HE HAS CONCLUDED it is unconstitutional but they are going to see to it that the interests of the US are represented? Can anyone say DOUBLESPEAK??? Does this not sound like "1984" to anyone????

Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States plainly outlines the responsibilities of the Exective branch.

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

CONGRESS MAKES AND REPEALS LAWS!!!! NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!! THERE IS A PROCESS!!! WHY DID HE NOT GO THROUGH IT???

A: He is a megalomaniac who thinks the country and the world belong to him.

So you say, "Well, I like widgets and I think widgets should have the same marital rights as everyone." SO? Do we excuse abuse of power and overstepping of bounds b/c we it works for something we agree with? (That is "the ends justifies the means" kind of thinking. Hitler had that sort of thinking.) Perhaps you do not care..."so what...just a bunch of widgets...longs as they widget over there away from me."

What about the precedent it sets? What happens when later on some president decides that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional??? Can you see the potential tragic ramifications. This nation is starting to come apart at the seams....fueled by immoral leaders and complacent citizenry. (You see, this is what happens when we allow "moral relativism" creep in and everyone "makes their own truth"....it is happening in the Oval Office right now.)

And if think the president is doing the "widget community" some sort of huge favor, ask yourself, "If Widgets were so important to the President, why did he not try to do something about it when he had a democrat majority house and senate the first two years? Moreover, why didn't the President to try to do something about this when he was a senator? Why is he waiting until Congress is out of session to do this?"

No matter what side of the political aisle you are on...this ought to scare the bejinkers out of you!!!!

I couldn't even get half way through this scenario...because we are talking about people and their love and their rights....not widgets....or cars, or bikes. People....Gods creation too.....not anything you can dehumanize with other non feeling....non living things

Sister Fearless
February 25th, 2011, 05:42 PM
Yeah, it's kind of a funny issue. Most people are not gay, so no worries when it comes to people marrying and having children. I wonder how many people have considered the fact that gay people are the result of heterosexual relationships.

this I think is very true and very interesting

nedwina
February 25th, 2011, 05:43 PM
I was hoping Obama would slip in some of those "signing statements" that George liked to do on legislation, but so far he hasn't. Probably a prudent move, considering the current climate, but he could have gotten a Public Option into the Healthcare Bill which would have made alot of people happy....but those people don't write nice fat checks like the Insurance Companies will. So~

As we all know, we enjoy three branches of gov for a reason. One or another can sometimes get it wrong. So the other two correct. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later.

Clinton should have veto'd DOMA. But he didn't. So now, 15 years later, as the courts are actively deciding (one after another) that it actually is unconstitutional, the Executive Branch is weighing in too.

It still needs to be overturned in a real fashion by the Judicial or Legislative branches. It's still in force, just not being defended. (By Executive order.) I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that that is perfectly ok, procedurally speaking.

Lawdawg had a great link on the legal arguments surrounding gay marriage that he posted awhile back in another thread. That everyone roundly ignored in the discussion. It might be time to dig that one up to read over. It's very clear, very simple. Prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Sister Fearless
February 25th, 2011, 05:44 PM
I'm not gay friendly... I'm LOVE friendly



by the way,
I am against hetero marriages based on property and power.


I like how you think

mohoghead
February 25th, 2011, 06:37 PM
I am really curious here, How do you know God is agains't gay or interracial marraige?? when was the last time you talked to him??

NightMist
February 25th, 2011, 06:56 PM
The whole purpose of DOMA, unapologetically and openly, was to try and do an end run around the constitution.

It attempts to legalize violating the full faith an credit clause.
There is no way the justice department can reasonably defend that.
I say it is about time somebody at the Justice Department got up on their hind legs and said so.

The stated reasons for it are irrelevant, we cannot have laws whose whole purpose is to violate the constitution.

Yes I am pro gay marriage. Even if I wasn't I would be against this sort of thing.

hikingonthru
February 25th, 2011, 07:01 PM
Are you people smoking some of the Afghan Kush???? I intentionally tried to de-escalate the "gay" issue...by terming it in a "Widget" scenario.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT GAY ANYTHING...IT IS ABOUT A PRESIDENT DECIDING THAT HE HAS THE SUPREME POWER TO CHANGE FEDERAL LAW FROM HIS OFFICE! HE DOES NOT! And whoever made the comment about him upholding the constitution in this action would do from reading over the division of powers as outlined by the constitution rather than what they think should be (again, the major issue from obama to, apparently, people on this board..."I make my own truth in my head". Rubbish)

How about this...What if Obama up and said, "I think it is unconstitutional that the FOIA and the Civil Rights act are unconsititutional...I am ordering the Justice Dept. to stop defending any claims based on those acts."?

The point is the man is overstepping his executive bound...but b/c it is on an issue you tend to feel okay with, you are accepting of it. Pragmatism, egotism, nazisim...none of it is an excuse for that sort of behavior from the office of the POTUS.

No Moho, you are not curious...you are trolling...if you were curious, you would have asked a serious question or PMed me. And the answer is...several times today.

puttgirl
February 25th, 2011, 07:08 PM
I didn't see or hear anything there about changing federal laws. He only stated that he wasn't going to defend it anymore.

hikingonthru
February 25th, 2011, 07:20 PM
He is supposed to uphold and defend the laws of this land...those enacted by congress.

If one takes the time to read Article 2 of the Constitution (it is not that long), there is a very clear limitation of presidential power by the legislature.

Obama CANNOT legally do what he is doing. DOMA is a LAW...not an idea or a thought or an opinion. What has been spouted in response to my post is just that...opinion...and based on what has been typed I doubt half fully read what I posted.

If anyone cares to research it, there are recordings of the obama spokespeople making statements that the obama admin did not feel DOMA was constitutional but since it was law it was to be defended. Now...this is a total departure and 180.

There is a process...and it involves the congress.

Obama needs impeaching.

faitzfunny
February 25th, 2011, 07:24 PM
:rolleyes:
if the last one didn't get impeached, this one ain't gonna be.

rockpilefarmer
February 25th, 2011, 07:25 PM
Some are saying it is an impeachable offense to not defend laws passed by Congress in the courts.


I believe you are correct Dan. Obama is acting more like a monarch than a president.

Gardener5
February 25th, 2011, 07:27 PM
The Attorney General which leads the Justice Department serves bt request of the president so he basically has to do what the president wants. The Justice Department all the times decides wether to appeal cases the lost so I don't think it's unconstutional.

faitzfunny
February 25th, 2011, 07:27 PM
Are you people smoking some of the Afghan Kush???? I intentionally tried to de-escalate the "gay" issue...by terming it in a "Widget" scenario.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT GAY ANYTHING...IT IS ABOUT A PRESIDENT DECIDING THAT HE HAS THE SUPREME POWER TO CHANGE FEDERAL LAW FROM HIS OFFICE! HE DOES NOT! And whoever made the comment about him upholding the constitution in this action would do from reading over the division of powers as outlined by the constitution rather than what they think should be (again, the major issue from obama to, apparently, people on this board..."I make my own truth in my head". Rubbish)

How about this...What if Obama up and said, "I think it is unconstitutional that the FOIA and the Civil Rights act are unconsititutional...I am ordering the Justice Dept. to stop defending any claims based on those acts."?

The point is the man is overstepping his executive bound...but b/c it is on an issue you tend to feel okay with, you are accepting of it. Pragmatism, egotism, nazisim...none of it is an excuse for that sort of behavior from the office of the POTUS.

No Moho, you are not curious...you are trolling...if you were curious, you would have asked a serious question or PMed me. And the answer is...several times today.

your opinion is a load of manure

older than dirt
February 25th, 2011, 07:35 PM
Its more of the same KING OBAMA attitude we see in other areas.
Dropping the case against the black panthers in the 08 polling place violations.
Continuing a no drill policy in the gulf even after a judge said he could not do that. Continuing to implement Obama care after it was ruled unconstitutional.
Even the Czars that he has appointed. While other Presidents have used them, Obama has basicly done an end run around Senate conformation hearings with Czars . He has shown a general disregard for law & custom much as a King might.

hikingonthru
February 25th, 2011, 07:49 PM
Good point...obama is acting like King Barack.

Hussein was ELECTED...and immediately did a run around of the nation's checks and balances. He killed his opposition. Pretty blantant.

Hitler did the same thing...get in power and run around anything that resembles a check and balance.

Obamas actions are essentially the same...a blatant abuse and overstepping of his power...just not quite as blantant and no mass killings (yet).

puttgirl
February 25th, 2011, 07:54 PM
The only man who would be king was GWB.

FAADAN
February 25th, 2011, 07:59 PM
If someone sued to do away with the civil rights act and the justice department refused to defend the suit, all you libs would be in an absolute tizzy. This is not about gay marriage, it is about the responsibility of the Justice Department to defend laws passed by Congress. This will set a very bad precedent if nothing is done to stop it.

fruits&nuts
February 25th, 2011, 08:01 PM
It's not about Bush vs Obama. It's about the slow expansion of federal power that has been going on, nonstop, under both the democrats and republicans, for the last 80 or so years.

As long as we keep focusing on the republicans vs the democrats they will continue to divide us and conquer.

Sister Fearless
February 25th, 2011, 08:06 PM
DOMA should have been illegal from the very beginning......DOWN with DOMA!!!!
my marriage needs no defense from love and freedom

it was a sick and stupid move Clinton should have NEVER signed such trash

Denninmi
February 25th, 2011, 08:18 PM
Ah, I see the Cons have their undies all up in a bunch again over a non-issue. Maybe you boys need to take some advice from Lady Gaga: "Don't be a drag, just be a Queen."

Ah, I know you can't help yourselves, you were just born that way.

NightMist
February 25th, 2011, 08:23 PM
If someone sued to do away with the civil rights act and the justice department refused to defend the suit, all you libs would be in an absolute tizzy. This is not about gay marriage, it is about the responsibility of the Justice Department to defend laws passed by Congress. This will set a very bad precedent if nothing is done to stop it.

Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The president swears an oath to defend the constitution.
I would presume that that includes defending it from congress when needed.

If you look at the statements from both the Oval Office and the Justice Department, you will note that the only part they have no intention of defending is the part that is so clearly unconstitutional that a child could see it.
As I said before, that section was included in an attempt to defy the Constitution of the United States. Without it states would have been required to honor legally binding contracts formed in other states, with it they did not have to. A clear constitutional violation, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Personally I think Clinton should have been spanked somehow for failing to defend the constitution when the thing hit his desk. That was a serious violation of his oath. That Bush let it ride during his term of office does no service to him.

It is within the purview of SCOTUS to decide the president and the justice department are either right or wrong. So lets see what they do.

FAADAN
February 25th, 2011, 09:08 PM
The president swears an oath to defend the constitution.
I would presume that that includes defending it from congress when needed.

If you look at the statements from both the Oval Office and the Justice Department, you will note that the only part they have no intention of defending is the part that is so clearly unconstitutional that a child could see it.
As I said before, that section was included in an attempt to defy the Constitution of the United States. Without it states would have been required to honor legally binding contracts formed in other states, with it they did not have to. A clear constitutional violation, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Personally I think Clinton should have been spanked somehow for failing to defend the constitution when the thing hit his desk. That was a serious violation of his oath. That Bush let it ride during his term of office does no service to him.

It is within the purview of SCOTUS to decide the president and the justice department are either right or wrong. So lets see what they do.

It a matter for the courts to decide, not the Justice Department. Their job is to represent the legally enacted laws of the country. If the court finds it unconstitutional, so be it. Another case where Obama considers himself above the law He can act as judge, jury, and executioner.

hikingonthru
February 25th, 2011, 09:17 PM
The president swears an oath to defend the constitution.
I would presume that that includes defending it from congress when needed.


With all due respect, Nightmist, I am going to beg your leave to use this comment as an example...

"I would presume..." is a big problem in America. Obama said, "I would presume I can do what I want...I am the king." People sat, "I would presume..." when they should be saying...."I don't need to presume in this instance...I have a document I can read...it is called the constitution."

It clearly outlines the responsibilities of each branch of government.

hikingonthru
February 25th, 2011, 09:19 PM
It a matter for the courts to decide, not the Justice Department. Their job is to represent the legally enacted laws of the country. If the court finds it unconstitutional, so be it. Another case where Obama considers himself above the law He can act as judge, jury, and executioner.

FAADAN, I don't know what the heck I was thinking that I would be any sort of logical dialogue on such a topic.

Sister Fearless
February 25th, 2011, 09:20 PM
people before systems

Zephyrbird5a-6
February 25th, 2011, 09:40 PM
DOMA should have been illegal from the very beginning......DOWN with DOMA!!!!
my marriage needs no defense from love and freedom

it was a sick and stupid move Clinton should have NEVER signed such trash

Agreed.

FAADAN
February 25th, 2011, 09:42 PM
So, I guess that if I sue to overturn the Civil Rights Act and the President decides not to defend the law, you will all be OK with that?

rockpilefarmer
February 25th, 2011, 11:16 PM
I am not. I vote. I will be heard. So long as the Judeo-Christian God is still on the throne!

Ohiorganic
February 26th, 2011, 05:15 AM
I have long found it amusing that people with zero law training and often less than a 4 year college degree (much less an advance degree such as a Juris Doctorate) seem to think they know more about constitutional law than the POTUS and other constitutional law scholars who has advanced degrees in this.

keep it coming boyz and girlz :rolleyes:

Denninmi
February 26th, 2011, 06:15 AM
The insane rants of Eye of Newt aside, this is just SOP for corporate counsel for government entities -- as Kenny Rogers said, at some point, you've got to know when to fold 'em.

hikingonthru
February 26th, 2011, 07:03 AM
That is the point - with his education, he KNOWS his bounds....and overstepped them. Plain and simple, he broke the law. Problem is, he thinks he is above it.

FAADAN
February 26th, 2011, 07:37 AM
That is the point - with his education, he KNOWS his bounds....and overstepped them. Plain and simple, he broke the law. Problem is, he thinks he is above it.

And since no one is bringing articles of impeachment, evidently he is.

faitzfunny
February 26th, 2011, 08:26 AM
:rolleyes:

impeachment over this ? What a crock.

BigLou80
February 26th, 2011, 09:59 PM
Is it even legal for congress to enact a law that violates to constitution. I thought we called those constitutional amendments where we change the constitution there by making it not a violation. I don't recall seeing DOMA on that list.

I think the comparison to not defending the civil rights act is bogus. We are not talking about the civil rights act or any other constitutional act for that matter.

The whole point of separation of powers is to prevent one branch from running amuk and doing an end run around the constituion. While he can not repeal the law or even declare it unconstitutional only the supreme court can do that. He is the executive officer, he can chose to what degree a law get executed. The president is charged with conducting the gov'ts day to day business. He didn't say DOMA is no longer a law he just wants to focus his executive resources elsewhere. This is what CEO's do

hikingonthru
February 26th, 2011, 11:55 PM
BigLou,

If you will read the first posting, I included an excerpt of Obama's statement. It clearly states that he had decided that DOMA was unconstitutional so he ordered the Justice Dept. to stop defending it.

He simply does not have the right to order the justice department to do anything based on his interpretation of the law. His job is NOT interpretation of law.

And someone should remind him to that his job is to run the day to day business of the US. From the looks of gas, food and the price of everything else he is doing a terrible job.

Ohiorganic
February 27th, 2011, 03:45 AM
MA district court also finds DOMA unconstitutional http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/07/doma-unconstitutional-massachusetts-federal-district-judge-finds-section-3-of-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstituti.html
AND the Obama DOJ does as well

and from the sound of this quote, you got it all wrong HOT. It seems that the DOJ made the call first and Obama followed so it would be incorrect to say that Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending it

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Attorney General Eric Holder

BigLou80
February 27th, 2011, 06:31 AM
BigLou,

If you will read the first posting, I included an excerpt of Obama's statement. It clearly states that he had decided that DOMA was unconstitutional so he ordered the Justice Dept. to stop defending it.

He simply does not have the right to order the justice department to do anything based on his interpretation of the law. His job is NOT interpretation of law.

That's his job. It's 100% with in his job description to direct the DOJ. I think its comical to suggest that the POTUS can't use his interpretation of the law to direct the DOJ. There is a big difference between him doing something internally and him going on TV and telling the world he is invalidating a law. He is still waiting for the supreme court to do their part.


And someone should remind him to that his job is to run the day to day business of the US. From the looks of gas, food and the price of everything else he is doing a terrible job.

Really, you have to be kidding me, the price of gas is Obama's fault ? The price of food is Obama's fault lol.
I am dying to hear about how you think Obama should appoint a Czar to the stock market to protect the price of gas so we can all drive around in V8 powered SUV's what a joke

RozieDozie
February 27th, 2011, 06:35 AM
Funny how ole' Newt and Beck are ranting on that Obama is "anti marriage". If you use them for an example, I guess this is true. Newt has had 3 marriages, Beck 2, and Obama only 1.

(heard this somewhere and thought it was funny.)

faitzfunny
February 27th, 2011, 07:26 AM
GOOD ONE ROZIE !!!

so I guess the answer to the question in the topic line is.....
nope.... except the ones that aren't secure with their sexuality
and marital status lol

FAADAN
February 27th, 2011, 07:27 AM
There is only one branch of the government that has the legal authority to decide if a law is unconstitutional and thereby not followed, and it is not the Administrative Branch. This President has flagrantly disregarded the law and even the judges of the country because he believes he knows more than they do.

faitzfunny
February 27th, 2011, 07:29 AM
There is only one branch of the government that has the legal authority to decide if a law is unconstitutional and thereby not followed, and it is not the Administrative Branch. This President has flagrantly disregarded the law and even the judges of the country because he believes he knows more than they do.

so you are one of them... we got that much. :rolleyes:

FAADAN
February 27th, 2011, 07:31 AM
so you are one of them... we got that much. :rolleyes:

Is that even an argument or just a personal attack? :confused:

Ohiorganic
February 27th, 2011, 08:28 AM
There is only one branch of the government that has the legal authority to decide if a law is unconstitutional and thereby not followed, and it is not the Administrative Branch. This President has flagrantly disregarded the law and even the judges of the country because he believes he knows more than they do.

Um wrong, see my above post (47). This has already been ruled unconstitutional by a District Court judge.

faitzfunny
February 27th, 2011, 09:03 AM
Is that even an argument or just a personal attack? :confused:

neither... it's a clarification of the one post before yours.
(#50)

faitzfunny
February 27th, 2011, 11:29 AM
hmmm.... abortion is in the Constitution...
yet by some of the posts read here,
well... come up with your own conclusions I suppose.

Bugcrusher
February 27th, 2011, 11:40 AM
The president swears an oath to defend the constitution.
I would presume that that includes defending it from congress when needed.

If you look at the statements from both the Oval Office and the Justice Department, you will note that the only part they have no intention of defending is the part that is so clearly unconstitutional that a child could see it.
As I said before, that section was included in an attempt to defy the Constitution of the United States. Without it states would have been required to honor legally binding contracts formed in other states, with it they did not have to. A clear constitutional violation, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Personally I think Clinton should have been spanked somehow for failing to defend the constitution when the thing hit his desk. That was a serious violation of his oath. That Bush let it ride during his term of office does no service to him.

It is within the purview of SCOTUS to decide the president and the justice department are either right or wrong. So lets see what they do.

This is the heart of the matter. Why waste our tax dollars supporting a stupid law that is blatantly unconstitutional? The Prez made the right decision..and some of you people are just trying to justify your continuing <*>! I don't know why I even bother...I thought yall were against govt intrusion into folks personnal lives...oh wait...only as long as it doesn't affect you...:rolleyes:

Ohiorganic
February 27th, 2011, 11:44 AM
This is the heart of the matter. Why waste our tax dollars supporting a stupid law that is blatantly unconstitutional? The Prez made the right decision..and some of you people are just trying to justify your continuing <*>! I don't know why I even bother...I thought yall were against govt intrusion into folks personnal lives...oh wait...only as long as it doesn't affect you...:rolleyes:

BINGO!

faitzfunny
February 27th, 2011, 12:00 PM
exactly

FAADAN
February 27th, 2011, 12:18 PM
BINGO!

This is government intrusion into my life. The endorsement of homosexual activity by the government will make it more difficult for parents, who believe that it is sinful, to teach their kids otherwise. It will be more costly for states and other branches of government.

faitzfunny
February 27th, 2011, 12:23 PM
This is government intrusion into my life. The endorsement of homosexual activity by the government will make it more difficult for parents, who believe that it is sinful, to teach their kids otherwise. It will be more costly for states and other branches of government.

How the heck is this intrusion in your life ???
Nobody is making you marry a gay man.

are you a parent who has to teach your child discrimination ?
it's done all the time !

RozieDozie
February 27th, 2011, 12:29 PM
This is government intrusion into my life. The endorsement of homosexual activity by the government will make it more difficult for parents, who believe that it is sinful, to teach their kids otherwise. It will be more costly for states and other branches of government.

You can teach your kids anything you want. But this is what the US supreme court has said:

"private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution." Lawrence vs Texas 2003

sheepyhollowfarm
February 27th, 2011, 12:50 PM
Intrusion into your life????? Sounds more to me like you are trying to intrude into the life of every gay and bisexual American!

fruits&nuts
February 27th, 2011, 01:34 PM
You can teach your kids anything you want. But this is what the US supreme court has said:

"private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution." Lawrence vs Texas 2003

Why did the SCt reach the opposite conclusion in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick? Did the Constitution change between 1986 and 2003?

And if there are liberty rights implicit in the due process clause then why is prostitution illegal? Why is it illegal for someone to grow a plant in their backyard for their own use?

A cynic might think that the SCt was issuing a political opinion and not a legal opinion....

Bugcrusher
February 27th, 2011, 01:50 PM
Arguing with trolls <**> if ya don't feed em maybe they will shut it for a while or get into something thats actually means something.

RozieDozie
February 27th, 2011, 01:57 PM
Why did the SCt reach the opposite conclusion in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick? Did the Constitution change between 1986 and 2003?

And if there are liberty rights implicit in the due process clause then why is prostitution illegal? Why is it illegal for someone to grow a plant in their backyard for their own use?

A cynic might think that the SCt was issuing a political opinion and not a legal opinion....

Prostitution isn't private; it's a business. Money changes hands. What is protected here is the right of ALL Americans to engage in private sexual relationships with each other in private.

Read the Texas case. It's really interesting.

NightMist
February 27th, 2011, 02:54 PM
Why did the SCt reach the opposite conclusion in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick? Did the Constitution change between 1986 and 2003?

And if there are liberty rights implicit in the due process clause then why is prostitution illegal? Why is it illegal for someone to grow a plant in their backyard for their own use?

A cynic might think that the SCt was issuing a political opinion and not a legal opinion....

Bowers v. Hardwick is a poor choice for such an example, if only because some of the concurring votes expressed doubt about their decision. After the decision at least one of the concurring votes stated that he felt he was in error and that the dissent had the right of it. Had he voted with the dissent at the time, the law would have bee struck down and we would not have had to wait for Lawrence v. Texas to decide the government had no interest in what consenting adults do in their bedroom. So no, the constitution did not change, the court's opinion simply firmed up and solidified on the matter.

Your other questions are darn good ones.
I do not indulge in such things myself, but I have always thought that legalizing, regulating, and taxing would be the way to go with those. Between the money saved on law enforcement, the tax revenue generated, and the benefits to public health and safety, it seems like a really big win to do so.

Rhody Seth
February 28th, 2011, 09:06 AM
This is government intrusion into my life. The endorsement of homosexual activity by the government will make it more difficult for parents, who believe that it is sinful, to teach their kids otherwise. It will be more costly for states and other branches of government.

Admit it folks, you gotta give him credit. He's going down with the ship. :p

FAADAN
February 28th, 2011, 09:21 AM
Admit it folks, you gotta give him credit. He's going down with the ship. :p

Government should not be involved in marriage at all.

RozieDozie
February 28th, 2011, 09:37 AM
Government should not be involved in marriage at all.

Absolutely. No license, no tax breaks, no community property, no divorce, no childsupport... Just agreements between people, come and go as they will. Individualists.....

Rhody Seth
February 28th, 2011, 09:40 AM
Government should not be involved in marriage at all.

I agree but that ship has sailed.

faitzfunny
February 28th, 2011, 12:39 PM
as churches should stay out of civil unions :cool:

FAADAN
February 28th, 2011, 12:53 PM
as churches should stay out of civil unions :cool:

Churches are willing to stay out of civil unions.

faitzfunny
February 28th, 2011, 01:37 PM
The church's influence is everywhere. Even in the bedroom.

greenmagick
February 28th, 2011, 01:40 PM
When was government not involved in marriage?

I dont know, at some point maybe it wasnt, but this is not some new phenomena here. It is really simple. There are religious marriages and secular marriages. One can have neither, one, or both.

aksteve
February 28th, 2011, 01:51 PM
The church's influence is everywhere. Even in the bedroom.

Yes Obama is unconstitutional, hello? what else is new?

The gov has no business the bedroom.

the reason gay couples want a recognized marriage is so they can qualify for benefits as a couple. simple.

the government has no business on either side of the fence the church can call whoever married and recognized by God.

non Christian can do what they do and can be recognized by whatever and it's all good.

The fair way to have benefits of marriage is that there would no longer be partner and or children benefits. if you want them pay for them in regards to retirement and health benefits. I've done well as I have six kids but can understand why someone that is not of my religion would be jealous of my added benefits. IMO

Pepper
February 28th, 2011, 07:17 PM
The only man who would be king was GWB.

Why ???

Pepper
February 28th, 2011, 08:03 PM
wow the name calling here , if you dont think like some of the morons they start the name calling , way to go morons .

Zephyrbird5a-6
February 28th, 2011, 11:42 PM
???

Denninmi
March 1st, 2011, 12:46 PM
The insane rants of Eye of Newt aside, this is just SOP for corporate counsel for government entities -- as Kenny Rogers said, at some point, you've got to know when to fold 'em.

For those who are so "concerned" that this is such a rare precedent, or somehow unconstitutional or has never happened before:

Precedent

While the administration's DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court. The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr's deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134132526/u-s-defends-doma-despite-dropping-support

faitzfunny
March 1st, 2011, 12:50 PM
wow the name calling here , if you dont think like some of the morons they start the name calling , way to go morons .

who, specifically are you attacking this time ?

LoreD
March 1st, 2011, 01:38 PM
wow the name calling here , if you dont think like some of the morons they start the name calling , way to go morons .

You seem to be the only one who is calling people names so I will return it to you: Way to go, moron.

LoreD

faitzfunny
March 1st, 2011, 01:57 PM
The only man who would be king was GWB.

He wanted to be that's for sure :cool:
Good thing he had unca dick to help him !

Zephyrbird5a-6
March 1st, 2011, 02:55 PM
For those who are so "concerned" that this is such a rare precedent, or somehow unconstitutional or has never happened before:

Precedent

While the administration's DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court. The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr's deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134132526/u-s-defends-doma-despite-dropping-support

Thanks, Denn, for posting it. I knew of some of these but frankly get sick of arguing whether something is consititutional with people who just want to scream that Obama and Democrats are anti-constitutional. They don't want to know the truth, they just want to scream about Obama.

::shrugs:: But then, it's constitutional when THEIR side uses it.:rolleyes:

Denninmi
March 1st, 2011, 03:18 PM
Thanks, Denn, for posting it. I knew of some of these but frankly get sick of arguing whether something is consititutional with people who just want to scream that Obama and Democrats are anti-constitutional. They don't want to know the truth, they just want to scream about Obama.

::shrugs:: But then, it's constitutional when THEIR side uses it.:rolleyes:

Exactly!;)

puttgirl
March 1st, 2011, 05:17 PM
Gotta love that NPR-thanks, Denninmi!

snake
March 6th, 2011, 02:35 AM
'This is government intrusion into my life. The endorsement of homosexual activity by the government will make it more difficult for parents, who believe that it is sinful, to teach their kids otherwise. It will be more costly for states and other branches of government.'...
--------
It's parents 'rights' to teach their kids how they want to....But oh, how sad and destructive beliefs like this are...
The suffering, and suicides that these kinds of false beliefs create...
And what is still so astounding...Is that so many of the people who still pass on this kind of poison to their kids - evoke 'Jesus' as a role model...
In superficial image only I'm afraid...

fruits&nuts
March 6th, 2011, 11:48 AM
Exactly!;)

And the ultimate point is that both parties urinate on the Constitution whenever they want so why are you supporting either of them?

faitzfunny
March 6th, 2011, 12:53 PM
'This is government intrusion into my life. The endorsement of homosexual activity by the government will make it more difficult for parents, who believe that it is sinful, to teach their kids otherwise. It will be more costly for states and other branches of government.'...
--------
It's parents 'rights' to teach their kids how they want to....But oh, how sad and destructive beliefs like this are...
The suffering, and suicides that these kinds of false beliefs create...
And what is still so astounding...Is that so many of the people who still pass on this kind of poison to their kids - evoke 'Jesus' as a role model...
In superficial image only I'm afraid...

('you' in this case, is anyone who would place the burden of guilt on their children for being who they are)

why would it make teaching your children harder ?
believing something is sinful ? Belief is subjective.
Faith is subjective. When something subjective tries to
teach me an absolute, it doesn't compute as true.

do you think if you don't teach them it's a sin, that they will choose that lifestyle ? It's not a choice. They need to be who they are. Thinking they are being sinful for just being themselves places much too much guilt on the child who can't help who they are. Try love- try acceptance- try tolerance.

hikingonthru
March 7th, 2011, 01:16 PM
For those who are so "concerned" that this is such a rare precedent, or somehow unconstitutional or has never happened before:

Precedent

While the administration's DOMA shift is unusual, it is not rare. It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years, including in some very important cases.

During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court. The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was recused in the case, so the lead counsel for the government in the case was Starr's deputy, a fellow by the name of John Roberts, now the chief justice of the United States.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134132526/u-s-defends-doma-despite-dropping-support


Den,
I want to thank you for actually posting something that is reflective of the base ISSUE...and not getting sidetracked. I found it thought-provoking. Perhaps it is not so surprising that Obama would be so blase about interpreting con law and attemtping to change it in light of the precedents of the presidents. It is no less alarming, however.

Based on the sidetracked responses on much of this thread, I can see how all those presidents would get away with it...the American people get caught up in the "front" and fail to see the forest for the trees. Moreover, if the infighting amongst this group, ostensibly a cross-section of American citizenry, is an indicator...they will keep on getting away with it...can't let go of a heartfelt issue either way long enough to come together to defend the common issues on which our nation is founded...namely - the prez don't interpret and change law...he defends it. Some of the responses are incredibly disheartening.

The direct name calling (i.e. - "moron") is uncalled for. Please stop of leave the thread.

johnsonjrbm
March 7th, 2011, 03:56 PM
Are you people smoking some of the Afghan Kush???? I intentionally tried to de-escalate the "gay" issue...by terming it in a "Widget" scenario.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT GAY ANYTHING...IT IS ABOUT A PRESIDENT DECIDING THAT HE HAS THE SUPREME POWER TO CHANGE FEDERAL LAW FROM HIS OFFICE! HE DOES NOT! And whoever made the comment about him upholding the constitution in this action would do from reading over the division of powers as outlined by the constitution rather than what they think should be (again, the major issue from obama to, apparently, people on this board..."I make my own truth in my head". Rubbish)

How about this...What if Obama up and said, "I think it is unconstitutional that the FOIA and the Civil Rights act are unconsititutional...I am ordering the Justice Dept. to stop defending any claims based on those acts."?

The point is the man is overstepping his executive bound...but b/c it is on an issue you tend to feel okay with, you are accepting of it. Pragmatism, egotism, nazisim...none of it is an excuse for that sort of behavior from the office of the POTUS.

No Moho, you are not curious...you are trolling...if you were curious, you would have asked a serious question or PMed me. And the answer is...several times today.

Personally, I'm much more concerned that Dubya didn't enforce the laws on the books regarding financial regulation. It drove us into the Great Recession, and is on of the leading causes of our huge deficit...

FAADAN
March 7th, 2011, 05:24 PM
Personally, I'm much more concerned that Dubya didn't enforce the laws on the books regarding financial regulation. It drove us into the Great Recession, and is on of the leading causes of our huge deficit...

Not true but we both know that don't we?

johnsonjrbm
March 7th, 2011, 07:30 PM
Not true but we both know that don't we?

No, we don't...