It's Official

[drsmith1072]

While I think the law is ignorant.

You don't get to pick the laws that you do and don't like.

Imagine trying to use this as a defense against a speeding ticket.

how friggin depressing.

It's obvious because of Obama's criminality, he gets to.

It's up to the rest of the country to force him to obey the law.

In all honesty, the same-sex marriage issue doesn't matter. It's all of the other crimes this guy and his administration have committed that we have yet to find out about that I'm concerned about.

This was just an attempt to kiss the asses of Gays. It was meaningless. I figure they have rights. But there are more serious issues Obama is purposely ignoring.

What are all of these "other crimes" that you are talking about?? Furthermore if it doesn't matter then why all the rage from the right??

 

[MaggieMae]

We are no longer a "Nation of Laws" We get to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws we will or will not follow.. Good luck to you my Fellow Americans. Good luck to youl.

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

Technically, the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. So who is it that's breaking laws again?

 

[mudwhistle]

While I think the law is ignorant.

You don't get to pick the laws that you do and don't like.

Imagine trying to use this as a defense against a speeding ticket.

how friggin depressing.

It's obvious because of Obama's criminality, he gets to.

It's up to the rest of the country to force him to obey the law.

In all honesty, the same-sex marriage issue doesn't matter. It's all of the other crimes this guy and his administration have committed that we have yet to find out about that I'm concerned about.

This was just an attempt to kiss the asses of Gays. It was meaningless. I figure they have rights. But there are more serious issues Obama is purposely ignoring.

What are all of these "other crimes" that you are talking about?? Furthermore if it doesn't matter then why all the rage from the right??

Money Laundering, Misuse of Government Funds, Bribery, Abuse Of Power, Blackmail, Contempt Of A Federal Court, Extortion, Election Fraud, Criminal Negligence, etc,. They keep adding up.

It's the Chicago Way.

To me, DOMA doesn't matter, because it's not a pressing issue. It's just an attempt by Obama to head fake to another wedge-issue that makes him look good right at the moment he and his union cohorts were looking really bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

We are no longer a "Nation of Laws" We get to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws we will or will not follow.. Good luck to you my Fellow Americans. Good luck to youl.

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

Technically, the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. So who is it that's breaking laws again?

How can a law intended to specify what will and will not be recognized as valid be unconstitutional? It is no different than specifying that persons age 62 and older are eligible for social security or that persons age 65 are eligible for medicare or that persons 18 or older can enlist in the armed forces. The DOMA specifies what will be recognized by the federal government as marriage for purposes of the tax code and for certain other federal considerations. It does not presume to tell the states how they must write their marriage laws but it does give states legal protection who recognize only traditional marriage as marriage. They do not have to recognize other than traditional marriage for persons moving from other states.

Now whether or not one agrees with DOMA or thinks it is or is not good law, it IS important to specify what the law will and will not protect when there are gray areas involved.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives--that's pretty darn bipartisan--and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 and there has been no successful court challenge to it whether the judges were appointed by Democrat or Republican. Congress has had fourteen years including two full years with substantial Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to repeal the law and there was no serious move to do so.

You can complain about or criticize DOMA on several different points, but constitutionality does not appear to be one of them.

 

[Yurt]

First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).

Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional. See, e.g., Memorial of Captain Meigs, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 462, 469-70 (1860) (asserting that the President need not enforce a statute purporting to appoint an officer); see also annotations of attached Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Moreover, as we discuss more fully below, numerous Presidents have provided advance notice of their intention not to enforce specific statutory requirements that they have viewed as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this practice. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983) (noting that Presidents often sign legislation containing constitutionally objectionable provisions and indicate that they will not comply with those provisions).

...

. The President's office and authority are created and bounded by the Constitution; he is required to act within its terms. Put somewhat differently, in serving as the executive created by the Constitution, the President is required to act in accordance with the laws -- including the Constitution, which takes precedence over other forms of law. This obligation is reflected in the Take Care Clause and in the President's oath of office.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

 

[Yurt]

We are no longer a "Nation of Laws" We get to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws we will or will not follow.. Good luck to you my Fellow Americans. Good luck to youl.

Technically, the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. So who is it that's breaking laws again?

How can a law intended to specify what will and will not be recognized as valid be unconstitutional? It is no different than specifying that persons age 62 and older are eligible for social security or that persons age 65 are eligible for medicare or that persons 18 or older can enlist in the armed forces. The DOMA specifies what will be recognized by the federal government as marriage for purposes of the tax code and for certain other federal considerations. It does not presume to tell the states how they must write their marriage laws but it does give states legal protection who recognize only traditional marriage as marriage. They do not have to recognize other than traditional marriage for persons moving from other states.

Now whether or not one agrees with DOMA or thinks it is or is not good law, it IS important to specify what the law will and will not protect when there are gray areas involved.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives--that's pretty darn bipartisan--and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 and there has been no successful court challenge to it whether the judges were appointed by Democrat or Republican. Congress has had fourteen years including two full years with substantial Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to repeal the law and there was no serious move to do so.

You can complain about or criticize DOMA on several different points, but constitutionality does not appear to be one of them.

two words: equal protection

 

[BolshevikHunter]

We are no longer a "Nation of Laws" We get to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws we will or will not follow.. Good luck to you my Fellow Americans. Good luck to youl.

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

Technically, the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. So who is it that's breaking laws again?

This isn't a Monarchy, It's a nation of Laws. Ok idiot, We will make sure to ask your opinion on ignoring law when the next President declares Obama's Health care bill Un-Constitutional. Which it is. ~BH

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well, for the record I don't have a problem with gay marriage either. What I have a problem with is the administration choosing what they will and will not honor as "law" in this country.

Yes, I see what you mean, and want to vomit, too. We are losing our country and it's values that we have grown to love, for better or for worse. I even wonder how far the "two people" that love each other will go, with this administration. Guess we'll know after 2012. The rules/laws are-a-changin.`

oh shut the fuck up, You are not loosing jack shit.
All you are doing is making yourself look like a twat

yes, yes you are.

 

[SFC Ollie]

oh shut the fuck up, You are not loosing jack shit.
All you are doing is making yourself look like a twat

yes, yes you are.

hey its captain child..where is your little butt buddy?he busy giving you oral pleasures.

And you are so good at showing us how much of an twat you are with each and every post. Keep em coming. No one can do it like you do......

 

[Foxfyre]

Technically, the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. So who is it that's breaking laws again?

How can a law intended to specify what will and will not be recognized as valid be unconstitutional? It is no different than specifying that persons age 62 and older are eligible for social security or that persons age 65 are eligible for medicare or that persons 18 or older can enlist in the armed forces. The DOMA specifies what will be recognized by the federal government as marriage for purposes of the tax code and for certain other federal considerations. It does not presume to tell the states how they must write their marriage laws but it does give states legal protection who recognize only traditional marriage as marriage. They do not have to recognize other than traditional marriage for persons moving from other states.

Now whether or not one agrees with DOMA or thinks it is or is not good law, it IS important to specify what the law will and will not protect when there are gray areas involved.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives--that's pretty darn bipartisan--and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 and there has been no successful court challenge to it whether the judges were appointed by Democrat or Republican. Congress has had fourteen years including two full years with substantial Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to repeal the law and there was no serious move to do so.

You can complain about or criticize DOMA on several different points, but constitutionality does not appear to be one of them.

two words: equal protection

The laws in all 50 states provide equal protection without prejudice, bias, or qualification. Every single person regardless of race, creed, socioeconomic status, political standing, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other criteria you can think of is subject to exactly the same law in all 50 states. Nobody is favored over anybody else. Nobody is left out.

And don't give me the old song about some not being able to marry the one he or she loves. The law does not give ANY of us that right. The law does not address nor deal with love, affection, or even whether the parties involved even like each other. And the laws in all 50 states are targeted for the protection of any children produced by the marriage which is not a factor for same sex couples.

You'll have to come up with some other argument because equal protection simply won't fly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Figure the odds he refuses to defend Roe v Wade on constitutional grounds.

Roe v Wade is constitutional law, genius.

 

[mudwhistle]

Figure the odds he refuses to defend Roe v Wade on constitutional grounds.

Roe v Wade is constitutional law, genius.

Why don't we just declare Roe v Wade unsatisfactory and while we're at it Obamacare, which coincidentally has been ruled unconstitutional.

Let's just decide not to enforce those laws.

Obama doesn't want to enforce immigration laws nor does he want to defend the DOMA so in effect he has ruled by decree that both are moot.

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

We'll only obey from now on the laws we think are fair. Fuck those who disagree. When we win back the White House you libs can just go fuck yourselves.

 

[Annie]

Just following the procedures:

The Non-Defense of DOMA | Cato @ Liberty

The Non-Defense of DOMA

Posted by Jason Kuznicki

The Obama Administration's decision to stop defending DOMA in the courts has provoked some widespread commentary. Jim Burroway hints that Obama's strategy here is both deep and cynical. Obama's locked in a losing fight with Republicans over the budget, because Americans really do want to cut federal spending. This remains true even if, notoriously, nearly the only specific program they want to cut is our negligible foreign aid.

The mood is anti-spending, and it's just possible that a government shutdown scares Obama even more than it scares the Republicans. The remedy? Change the subject. Make Republicans in Congress defend their stance on gay marriage, which is so not the discussion they'd like to be having.

It could be one of the first instances in which gay marriage counts as a wedge issue against Republicans, rather than for them. Opposing same-sex marriage appeals strongly to a smallish base. To the center, the whole subject is distasteful either way, and they don't mind if Obama drops it. Finally, more and more people just find the conservatives embarrassing here. Obama sees no need to do their dirty work for them, especially when the work really is that dirty.

Meanwhile, Orin Kerr is worried about executive power:

By taking that position, the Obama Administration has moved the goalposts of the usual role of the Executive branch in defending statutes. Instead of requiring DOJ to defend the constitutionality of all federal statutes if it has a reasonable basis to do so, the new approach invests within DOJ a power to conduct an independent constitutional review of the issues, to decide the main issues in the case — in this case, the degree of scrutiny for gay rights issues — and then, upon deciding the main issue, to decide if there is a reasonable basis for arguing the other side. If you take that view, the Executive Branch essentially has the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Constitution are popular or associated with that Administration. It changes the role of the Executive branch in defending litigation from the traditional dutiful servant of Congress to major institutional player with a great deal of discretion.

If that approach becomes widely adopted, then it would seem to bring a considerable power shift to the Executive Branch. Here’s what I fear will happen. If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress’s power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.​

Liberals: If you think declining to defend DOMA is the right decision, how will you feel when a Republican administration declines to defend in a school prayer case? Or an abortion case? Or on Obamacare itself?...

 

[drsmith1072]

How can a law intended to specify what will and will not be recognized as valid be unconstitutional? It is no different than specifying that persons age 62 and older are eligible for social security or that persons age 65 are eligible for medicare or that persons 18 or older can enlist in the armed forces. The DOMA specifies what will be recognized by the federal government as marriage for purposes of the tax code and for certain other federal considerations. It does not presume to tell the states how they must write their marriage laws but it does give states legal protection who recognize only traditional marriage as marriage. They do not have to recognize other than traditional marriage for persons moving from other states.

Now whether or not one agrees with DOMA or thinks it is or is not good law, it IS important to specify what the law will and will not protect when there are gray areas involved.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives--that's pretty darn bipartisan--and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 and there has been no successful court challenge to it whether the judges were appointed by Democrat or Republican. Congress has had fourteen years including two full years with substantial Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to repeal the law and there was no serious move to do so.

You can complain about or criticize DOMA on several different points, but constitutionality does not appear to be one of them.

two words: equal protection

The laws in all 50 states provide equal protection without prejudice, bias, or qualification. Every single person regardless of race, creed, socioeconomic status, political standing, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other criteria you can think of is subject to exactly the same law in all 50 states. Nobody is favored over anybody else. Nobody is left out.

And don't give me the old song about some not being able to marry the one he or she loves. The law does not give ANY of us that right. The law does not address nor deal with love, affection, or even whether the parties involved even like each other. And the laws in all 50 states are targeted for the protection of any children produced by the marriage which is not a factor for same sex couples.

You'll have to come up with some other argument because equal protection simply won't fly.

actually it flies quite nicely.

First, Considering that marriage is a religious institution to deny a couple their religious right to marry is discrimination.

Second, The government should not recognize any marriage because it is at it's core a religious institution.

Third, the fact that the government chooses to recognize one marriage over another is indeed a vioaltion of equal protection under the law.

 

[blu]

We are no longer a "Nation of Laws" We get to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws we will or will not follow.. Good luck to you my Fellow Americans. Good luck to youl.

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

how this bullshit be debunked yet? the white house is under no requirement to defend laws and similarly it has no power to enforce or unenforce laws.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Technically, the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. So who is it that's breaking laws again?

This isn't a Monarchy, It's a nation of Laws. Ok idiot, We will make sure to ask your opinion on ignoring law when the next President declares Obama's Health care bill Un-Constitutional. Which it is. ~BH

like medicare, The Patriot Act, etc etc disagree with you

Never supported either. Maybe I should have said, "we should be a Nation of Laws. ~BH

 

[WillowTree]

We are no longer a "Nation of Laws" We get to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws we will or will not follow.. Good luck to you my Fellow Americans. Good luck to youl.

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The decision marks a significant about-face for the Obama Justice Department, which until now had defended the law in court despite President Obama's misgivings with the policy. The administration's attorneys as recently as last month had filed a court motion in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively bans recognition of same-sex marriage.

Technically, the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. So who is it that's breaking laws again?

It is a Federal Law. It will remain law until the Supreme Court declares it to be unconstitutional. Thanks for listening. or do you like "We are NOT a Nation of LAWs" better?