U.S. Justice Dept. decision not to defend Def of Marriage act, is wrong.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by 52ndStreet, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. 52ndStreet
    Offline

    52ndStreet VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,883
    Thanks Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +170
    The U.S. Justice Dept, and the Obama administration decision not to defend cases for the
    defense of marriage act, sends that wrong message about America to the rest of the world.
    Have we, as Americans lost all moral value?. How are we to viewed by the rest of the world now.

    America refuses to defend the fact that marriage should be only with a man and a woman.
    This action by the Obama administration is disgracefull, and will again sink Americas reputation throughout the rest of the world a bit more deeper.
     
  2. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,211
    Thanks Received:
    19,811
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,287
    Why defend the indefensible?

    Govt needs to stay out of marriage
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Vast LWC
    Offline

    Vast LWC <-Mohammed

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,390
    Thanks Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +871
    The problem with the "Defense of marriage act" from a legal standpoint has nothing to do with how you feel about gay marriage.

    It is unconstitutional for one simple reason:

    Deciding who can marry who is not one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Therefore, congress may pass no law defining marriage.

    Even conservatives must understand that simple truth.
     
  4. 52ndStreet
    Offline

    52ndStreet VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,883
    Thanks Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +170
    Not if the Constitution was amended in conjunction with the enactment of the Defense of marriage law.Then the law would not be unconstitutional.Which I believe there was a constitutional amendment.
     
  5. Vast LWC
    Offline

    Vast LWC <-Mohammed

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,390
    Thanks Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +871
    If a Constitutional Amendment is created that allows Congress to control marriage then Congress can make whatever law they want about it.

    But there is not one in place at the moment, and therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

    It's really an open and shut case.
     
  6. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    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.

    PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTEUNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES This memorandum discusses the President's constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Online

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    31,579
    Thanks Received:
    6,677
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +17,438
    How many threads on this are you going to create today?
     
  8. BenNatuf
    Offline

    BenNatuf Limit Authority

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,640
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Ratings:
    +119
    I don't really give a shit about the gay marriage aspect of it, what I find revealling is that the President finds the law unconstituional as his his want, has said its indeffesible which is demonstrably false, and yet he's still going to enforce it which violates both his oathe and Marbury. Thats just wrong.

    If he believes what he thinks is true he shouldn't enforce the damned thing.
     
  9. BenNatuf
    Offline

    BenNatuf Limit Authority

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,640
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Ratings:
    +119
    Thats because if he believes it is unconstituional he shouldn't abide by it, not enforce it till some court says otherwise.
    as it should be. To enforce a law thats unconstitutional is a violation of both his oathe and Marbury

    well established, so I'm perplexed at all the libs cheering his saying its unconstituional and he'll enforce it anyway until a court tells him otherwise.

    ...

    Great post. :clap2::clap2::clap2:
     
  10. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,734
    Thanks Received:
    4,324
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,663
    Obama don't care about America's image. That's why he spent his first year in office kissing the asses of two bit dictators and apologizing for America's affluence and freedom. Obama is playing to his far left base. The election is coming close and he needs to mobilize some sort of support.
     

Share This Page