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

[52ndStreet]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Why defend the indefensible?

Govt needs to stay out of marriage

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

 

[52ndStreet]

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.

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.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

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.

 

[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.

PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTEUNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES This memorandum discusses the President's constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

How many threads on this are you going to create today?

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Thats because if he believes it is unconstituional he shouldn't abide by it, not enforce it till some court says otherwise.

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).

as it should be. To enforce a law thats unconstitutional is a violation of both his oathe and Marbury

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).

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.

...

. 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.

Great post.

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[theHawk]

Whether or not you like or dislike the law, passed by Bill Clinton ironically, is irrelivant. A President has no legal authority to choose which laws that Department of Justice will defend or not defend in a court of law. It is not up to the President to determine if a law is unconsitutional or not.

Would you libs be OK with the next Republican President telling the DOJ that it will not defend challenges to other laws such as EPA, or abortion laws?

This President is setting a dangerous precedent, he is choosing which laws that have already been passed by Congress and signed into law are going to be enforced. Just look at the "health care" law he passed. It is not applied to everyone, he as issued out "waivers" to select companies and now even some whole states are getting waivers. A law that isn't subject to the President's select few elites isn't a just one.

Maybe the next President can issue a waiver to every citizen from the Health Care bill, as well as any other law he/she doesn't personally like.

 

[BenNatuf]

Whether or not you like or dislike the law, passed by Bill Clinton ironically, is irrelivant. A President has no legal authority to choose which laws that Department of Justice will defend or not defend in a court of law. It is not up to the President to determine if a law is unconsitutional or not.

where did you learn that? Because he certainly does and courts have upheld it over and over again. He doesn't get the final say, but he does get the first bite of the apple. He gets the third bite too, but thats another story.

Would you libs be OK with the next Republican President telling the DOJ that it will not defend challenges to other laws such as EPA, or abortion laws?

If he believed they were unconstituional he would be acting within his authority, on the other hand if he believed they were constituional and failed to defend them it would be a derriliction of duty. BTW, I'm not a lib, I'm likely more conservative than you are, but my opinion of Presidetial authority doesn't change with the letter after their name.

This President is setting a dangerous precedent, he is choosing which laws that have already been passed by Congress and signed into law are going to be enforced.

It's not a precedent, been done by almost every administration, you don't usually hear about it though, because they don't usually announce it.

Just look at the "health care" law he passed. It is not applied to everyone, he as issued out "waivers" to select companies and now even some whole states are getting waivers. A law that isn't subject to the President's select few elites isn't a just one.

True, and that piece of trash is unconstitutional.

Maybe the next President can issue a waiver to every citizen from the Health Care bill, as well as any other law he/she doesn't personally like.

wouldn't be worth squat, the president does not have the authority to exempt people from laws he believes to be constitutional. He does have the authority to pardon them for breaking them though.

The problem here isn't that Obama decided he believes the law to be inconstitutional (which is debateable), or that its constitutionally indeffensible (a clear lie since its been upheld in two different circuits), it's that he believes it's unconstitutional and he'll enforce it anyway. That, is a violation of his oathe and marbury.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

There was not.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Cause we all know that the Marrying Gays are a very very large voting bloc.

 

[High_Gravity]

I could be wrong but there aren't there more urgent issues on the agenda right now besides trying to stop gays from getting married? what about the war in Afghanistan? the cost of gas? unemployment? how does gays getting married really effect you? does it take any money out of your check?

 

[BenNatuf]

I could be wrong but there aren't there more urgent issues on the agenda right now besides trying to stop gays from getting married? what about the war in Afghanistan? the cost of gas? unemployment? how does gays getting married really effect you? does it take any money out of your check?

As usual you're confused. No-one bought up trying to stop gays from marrying, Obama bought up not defending a law he finds unconstitutional (suddenly) and allowing it to be overturned thereby changing the law and allowing gay marriages to be reccognized in sates where its not now. The activism here came from your end... I guess Obama didn't have anything else to worry about.

 

[High_Gravity]

I could be wrong but there aren't there more urgent issues on the agenda right now besides trying to stop gays from getting married? what about the war in Afghanistan? the cost of gas? unemployment? how does gays getting married really effect you? does it take any money out of your check?

As usual you're confused. No-one bought up trying to stop gays from marrying, Obama bought up not defending a law he finds unconstitutional (suddenly) and allowing it to be overturned thereby changing the law and allowing gay marriages to be reccognized in sates where its not now. The activism here came from your end... I guess Obama didn't have anything else to worry about.

No motherfucker, you are the one who is "confused", the OP wanted Obama to try and stop gay marriage.

 

[BenNatuf]

I could be wrong but there aren't there more urgent issues on the agenda right now besides trying to stop gays from getting married? what about the war in Afghanistan? the cost of gas? unemployment? how does gays getting married really effect you? does it take any money out of your check?

As usual you're confused. No-one bought up trying to stop gays from marrying, Obama bought up not defending a law he finds unconstitutional (suddenly) and allowing it to be overturned thereby changing the law and allowing gay marriages to be reccognized in sates where its not now. The activism here came from your end... I guess Obama didn't have anything else to worry about.

No motherfucker, you are the one who is "confused", the OP wanted Obama to try and stop gay marriage.

No, the OP wanted him to enforce the law... oddly enough, even though he believes it's unconstitutional (suddenly), thats exactly what he said he would do. The OP didn't bring this shit up... Obama did.

 

[theHawk]

I could be wrong but there aren't there more urgent issues on the agenda right now besides trying to stop gays from getting married? what about the war in Afghanistan? the cost of gas? unemployment? how does gays getting married really effect you? does it take any money out of your check?

Yes. The Muslim world is falling apart, oil is through the roof, our economy is still in shambles, and what is our great leader's response to all this? Gay marriage.

 

[theHawk]

where did you learn that? Because he certainly does and courts have upheld it over and over again. He doesn't get the final say, but he does get the first bite of the apple. He gets the third bite too, but thats another story.

A President gets a say in laws that land on his desk to sign or veto. Not laws that were passed by Congress and a previous President.

If he believed they were unconstituional he would be acting within his authority, on the other hand if he believed they were constituional and failed to defend them it would be a derriliction of duty. BTW, I'm not a lib, I'm likely more conservative than you are, but my opinion of Presidetial authority doesn't change with the letter after their name.

I don't see how the Department of Justice can just decide to defend or not defend cases brought against laws. Its ALREADY law, so its their job to defend and enforce it. The President gets to appoint the head of the DOJ, he does not have the authority to micro manage it and tell the agency to stop enforcing/defending certain laws he cherry picks.

It's not a precedent, been done by almost every administration, you don't usually hear about it though, because they don't usually announce it.

Provide some examples then?

wouldn't be worth squat, the president does not have the authority to exempt people from laws he believes to be constitutional. He does have the authority to pardon them for breaking them though.

Then how is the current President getting away with issuing "waivers" to whomever he deems worthy? He is not pardoning them from convictions.