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

[George Costanza]

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.

Thank you for this informative post. I was previously unaware that President Obama "don't care about America's image."

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

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.

As much as we disagree over some issues, such as ones you mentioned here, your non-hypocrisy here deserves much respect.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Agreed, though technically Obama isn't really doing anything, he's just not doing something. LOL.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Our reputation will not sink in the following countries where same sex couples enjoy the same benefits/problems opposite sex couples have.

Canada
Sweden
Norway
Holland
Belgium
Spain
Portugal
Iceland
South Africa
Mexico City, Mexico
Argentina

Theocratic states seem to be the one who have the most problems with gays.

 

[BlindBoo]

Except that it's not the duty of the President to declare laws unconstitutional.

No, its his duty not to enforce them if he finds them to be.

That's opening a really dangerous door.

The Presidential Non-Enforcement Power (and its Regularity)

Following President Obama’s determination that the executive branch would no longer enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a surprising amount of insightful and well-reasoned commentary suggests some danger in this act (e.g.), for continuing to consolidate lawmaking power in the executive branch. But this is a power that’s regularly exercised, doesn’t upset the balance of power between the branches and, clearly, does not disturb any understanding of the separation of powers.

The Presidential Non-Enforcement Power (and its Regularity) « Submitted to a Candid World

 

[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.

Agreed, though technically Obama isn't really doing anything, he's just not doing something. LOL.

True enough; however, Obama's gonna have a hell of time explaining how the law is constitutionally indeffenseable when its been upheld consitutionally by two seperate US Circuit courts of appeal... and one of them the 9th circus! Basing his opinion on the dcession of a district court judge acting against precedent is a weak legal position... realy very weak.