PDA

View Full Version : President Turns Back on Existing Law



soonercruiser
2/25/2011, 10:52 PM
OK - so no one else has the courage....
While the Demoncrats in Wisconsin & Indiana are leaving their states, turning their back on their states and their responsibilities - no one is talking about Obama turning his back on Constitutional law?

DOMA Legislation - passed by both houses of Congress, and signed into law by Billy Clinton - and the boy who would be president decides that he thinks that it isn't constitutional, and will not have the Justice Department defend it!
I think he as idiot!
And, he must think that HE is the Judicial Branch as well!


Defense of Marriage Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Government drops defense of anti-gay-marriage law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage

I tend to agree with the argument (like Mewt) that if President Palin did a similar act, like stop enforcing Roe v. Wade - the LW extremists would be calling for her impeachment!


http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/newt-gingrich-threatens-obama-with-impeachment-over-defense-of-marriage-act/
Newt Gingrich: Obama Could Be Impeached Over Gay Marriage ReversalBy Paul Bedard – February 25, 2011 – USNews

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who plans within two weeks to announce if he will run for president, said today that if President Obama doesn’t change his mind and order his Justice Department to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans in Congress should strike back and even consider impeachment proceedings.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”


But, then again, maybe Obama will call off Holder from attacking Arizona??? :rolleyes:

Blue
2/25/2011, 10:55 PM
Constitution? Pffft!

sooner ngintunr
2/25/2011, 11:05 PM
OK - so no one else has the courage....
While the Demoncrats in Wisconsin & Indiana are leaving their states, turning their back on their states and their responsibilities - no one is talking about Obama turning his back on Constitutional law?

DOMA Legislation - passed by both houses of Congress, and signed into law by Billy Clinton - and the boy who would be president decides that he thinks that it isn't constitutional, and will not have the Justice Department defend it!


wow bro.

You're really calling our POTUS, who happens to be half black, "boy"? Am I missing something? I'm not a fan of Obama but, really?

Billy Clinton? Demoncrats? Take a break.

StoopTroup
2/25/2011, 11:08 PM
If you're single....I guess you're basically ghey now that he's done all that.

sooner59
2/25/2011, 11:12 PM
Meh.

SoonerKnight
2/25/2011, 11:26 PM
Really. He controls the Justice Department and Gringrich is all about impeachment!!!!! :rolleyes:

Sooner5030
2/25/2011, 11:36 PM
These tactics (although minor in the grand scheme of things in this case) and others will continue to be used by both sides until we completely erode the belief in the rule of law. The “ends justify the means” tactics replaced doing things the right way long before Obama to office.

Too many normal folks have been losing faith in the State for the last decade. Ever wonder why federal tax revenues have been level for so long?

Flagstaffsooner
2/26/2011, 04:52 AM
wow bro.

You're really calling our POTUS, who happens to be half black, "boy"? Am I missing something? I'm not a fan of Obama but, really?

Billy Clinton? Demoncrats? Take a break.There is absolutely nothing wrong with his post.:mad:

AlbqSooner
2/26/2011, 07:26 AM
This President apparently does not recognize that we have three branches of Government. The legislative has passed this law. The judicial has not declared it to be improper in any fashion. The executive is now tasked with executing it.

If the executive branch believes the law to be ill-advised, it has the choice of encouraging the legislative to revisit the matter or ask the judicial to rule on the matter.

This president is simply side stepping the foundations of our government once again. It is a slippery slope indeed that can lead to despotism if unchecked. The check should come from the legislative as suggested by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

soonercruiser
2/26/2011, 11:59 AM
This President apparently does not recognize that we have three branches of Government. The legislative has passed this law. The judicial has not declared it to be improper in any fashion. The executive is now tasked with executing it.

If the executive branch believes the law to be ill-advised, it has the choice of encouraging the legislative to revisit the matter or ask the judicial to rule on the matter.

This president is simply side stepping the foundations of our government once again. It is a slippery slope indeed that can lead to despotism if unchecked. The check should come from the legislative as suggested by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Good post! This is the long explanation of my comment that Obama now "thinks" that he leads the Judicial Branch.

KantoSooner
2/26/2011, 02:32 PM
actually, this is a technique that has been used something over ten times by the past 4 administrations. And not always on purported constitutional grounds (ie "We don't think the law is Constitutional"). (And frankly, to simply not enforce it with no comment is probably less controversial than to get ahead of the Supreme Court and say, "We don't think it's Constitutional").
Obama's playing a little politics with an issue that is important to his more left wing base, but was not going to be a big focus of Justice Dept time/money anyway.
It's kind of a 'meh' situation. Don't let it bum your glide; there's a lot more important stuff being done by Obama, or being not done by Obama, to get in an uproar about.

GDC
2/26/2011, 02:36 PM
I think it's time for the American people to rise up against both parties, Wall Street, etc. and take our GD country back, like the Egyptians are doing.

Chuck Bao
2/26/2011, 03:44 PM
You guys will bitch about anything.

It is inevitable that DOMA will be over-turned as unconstitutional. It is a lost cause and a waste of taxpayers' money to try to defend it.

At the end of the day, the courts will decide if it is indeed unconstitutional. As I understand it, the legal advice given to President Obama is that an overturn of the law is a pretty sure thing.

Newt Gingrich is just trying to twist this around to make it something that it is not.

The Profit
2/26/2011, 03:47 PM
I think it's time for the American people to rise up against both parties, Wall Street, etc. and take our GD country back, like the Egyptians are doing.



We tried that in the 60's.

AlbqSooner
2/26/2011, 03:50 PM
there's a lot more important stuff being done by Obama, or being not done by Obama, to get in an uproar about.

This is why I said "once again".

His appointing "Czars" to avoid the need for confirmation by the Senate is but one example.

AlbqSooner
2/26/2011, 03:53 PM
Chuck, my problem is not with doing away with DOMA. What I object to is a President, in this instance Obama, believing that being president means he runs the entire show. Our government was designed as tripartate in order to assure checks and balances. Brack apparently bounces checks and puts him thumb on the balances thinking that as President he has that power.

AlbqSooner
2/26/2011, 03:54 PM
ooops - double post

KantoSooner
2/26/2011, 04:36 PM
As to the Imperial Presidency thing, I tend to agree, but that, too, is hardly fresh with Obama, you could probably draw the line of authority on that back to FDR.
My evaluation is that the problem lies with Congress. They won't act, out of cowardice and personal interest, so the President and the Supremes are left holding the bag as the only adults in the room.

Chuck Bao
2/26/2011, 05:29 PM
Chuck, my problem is not with doing away with DOMA. What I object to is a President, in this instance Obama, believing that being president means he runs the entire show. Our government was designed as tripartate in order to assure checks and balances. Brack apparently bounces checks and puts him thumb on the balances thinking that as President he has that power.

That sailed so far over my head that I didn't even get the customary head bump.

AlbqSooner, you are far smarter and wiser than I am on this issue. I don't even know if the absence of a defense in a challenge to an existing law makes much difference or not. Or, whether there are precedents for this sort of thing.

I still think that it is a bit of a stretch to assume that President Obama is over-stepping his bounds in the executive branch.

Personally, I would love to see DOMA overturned on constitutional grounds.
There also seems to be a growing number of Americans who also believe that the government should get out of the marriage business.

AlbqSooner
2/26/2011, 06:10 PM
Interestingly, the Federal Gov't. does not issue marriage licenses. It is a state authority. The Feds, in the past, recognized any state marriage license as valid for such purposes as income tax and social security benefits.

Chuck Bao
2/26/2011, 06:13 PM
Interestingly, the Federal Gov't. does not issue marriage licenses. It is a state authority. The Feds, in the past, recognized any state marriage license as valid for such purposes as income tax and social security benefits.

Then why DOMA?

jkjsooner
2/26/2011, 09:54 PM
Here's a good read on the matter of executive disregard. This was written in 2008.

http://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/issues/pdf/96-5/Prakash.PDF


John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued that they could not
enforce unconstitutional laws. Indeed, President Jefferson halted Sedition Act prosecutions on grounds that the Act was unconstitutional

No matter your opinion on this matter, whether the law is in fact unconstitutional and whether the executive branch has the power to ignore laws it believes are unconstitutional, considering the long history if this practice the talk of impeachment is silly.

It's easy to come up with cases where it would be absurd for the executive branch to enforce an unconstitutional law. Let's say the legislative branch passed a law (with a veto override) that it is illegal to practice Hinduism in this country. Would it be appropriate for the President to enforce such a law and vigorously defend the law in court?

soonercruiser
2/26/2011, 10:19 PM
Red Herring!

soonercruiser
2/26/2011, 10:27 PM
Red Herring!

This is the same LIAR who said before the Pres election that he believes that marriage is between a man and a women!
If he really believed it, he would have the guts to enforce the law.
As it is, he is a LIAR who would say whatever it takes to get elected. Then the true evil comes out. Once again, he is pandering to his progressive base!

jkjsooner
2/26/2011, 10:50 PM
Red Herring!

If you're talking about my example you are completely off base. A red herring must have an element of logical irrelevance.

The talk of impeachment implies that executive disregard is never an option. If you believe it is never an option, you must be able to defend this limitation on the executive branch even under extreme circumstances. That was the point I was making.

Anyway, you successfully disregarded the meat in my post.

Mongo
2/26/2011, 11:07 PM
I love it when one side doesnt mind the overstepping of the "law" when it benefits them, but celebrate with righteousness when their side does it.

And no, I do not agree with DOMA. But I also dont have a dog in the fight to make my opinion completely ruhtarded. But I do with our Nation's rules. **** Obama

Chuck Bao
2/26/2011, 11:21 PM
I love it when one side doesnt mind the overstepping of the "law" when it benefits them, but celebrate with righteousness when their side does it.

And no, I do not agree with DOMA. But I also dont have a dog in the fight to make my opinion completely ruhtarded. But I do with our Nation's rules. **** Obama

Funny that. I just don't see anywhere in the rulebook where it says that a US President must defend every act of legislation in a court of law.

Mongo
2/26/2011, 11:27 PM
the weener you have in this cornhole fight clouds your 'Merican judgement. Chuck, I do not agree with this doma stuff, but the actions of 1/3 of our Fed does.

jkjsooner
2/26/2011, 11:28 PM
I love it when one side doesnt mind the overstepping of the "law" when it benefits them, but celebrate with righteousness when their side does it.

And no, I do not agree with DOMA. But I also dont have a dog in the fight to make my opinion completely ruhtarded. But I do with our Nation's rules. **** Obama

So you agree that Jefferson should have been impeached?

I'm not asking anyone to agree with Obama's actions (or inaction) here. You can agree or disagree and criticize or support them based on your own philosophy. I'm merely attempting others to admit Obama's actions are in line with precedents set a long time ago and thus impeachment talk is absurd.

That journal article I posted gives a good rationale for executive disregard. Let's say law A was found unconstitutional by the courts. The executive branch concludes that the ruling on law A makes laws B-Z also in violation of the constitution as interpreted by the most recent ruling. However, the ruling did not directly address laws B-Z. Would the executive branch be required to enforce B-Z and have these be litigated separately or would it be appropriate for them to adjust their enforcement based on these new laws?

It's clear that for practical purposes the executive must evaluate the constitutionality of a law. When a constitutional ruling is made, the execute must alter its actions on similar laws and this requires the executive to judge constitutionality of laws.

Mongo
2/26/2011, 11:40 PM
So you agree that Jefferson should have been impeached?.

No.

Was I around when/if someone from that era made and passed laws to NOW cry about the law passed? No.

government process is government process. Like it or not, it takes time to reverse. But to think one third of our government is in the right to over turn another 1/3 without the other 1/3rd's decision is just ****ing retarded

SicEmBaylor
2/26/2011, 11:45 PM
That sailed so far over my head that I didn't even get the customary head bump.

AlbqSooner, you are far smarter and wiser than I am on this issue. I don't even know if the absence of a defense in a challenge to an existing law makes much difference or not. Or, whether there are precedents for this sort of thing.

I still think that it is a bit of a stretch to assume that President Obama is over-stepping his bounds in the executive branch.

Personally, I would love to see DOMA overturned on constitutional grounds.
There also seems to be a growing number of Americans who also believe that the government should get out of the marriage business.

It isn't that he's over-stepping -- it's that he's under-stepping by failing to perform his sworn Constitutional duty.

It's a Constitutional duty and responsibility for the Executive branch to enforce and uphold the laws passed by the legislative branch. The President has the power to veto legislation, but once it becomes law the President has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the law. It isn't up to the President to decide what is Constitutional or not Constitutional and enforce the law accordingly.

I hate DOMA, and I also think it's unconstitutional. However, it happens to be the law and Obama has a responsibility to enforce and execute the laws passed by Congress.

Sooner5030
2/26/2011, 11:56 PM
let the court find it unconstitutional (or least that particular section of DOMA) but don;t refuse to defend it.

we could have just waited to challenge the health care act until a pub is in office and then he could be inclined not to defend it because he"views" it as unconstitutional.

jkjsooner
2/26/2011, 11:59 PM
No.

Was I around when/if someone from that era made and passed laws to NOW cry about the law passed? No.

government process is government process. Like it or not, it takes time to reverse. But to think one third of our government is in the right to over turn another 1/3 without the other 1/3rd's decision is just ****ing retarded

The executive doesn't necessarily have the final judgement here. This can be taken to the courts and I believe they can force the executive branch to enforce the law, but of course only if the law is found constitutional. This is how the three branches all work to check each other's powers. (The legislative does in many cases have the ultimate power and that is why they must act with restraint.)

To require the executive branch to enforce unconstitutional laws would be to require the President to disregard his oath about defending the constitution. Once the courts rule a certain way, it become in effect part of the constitution and the interpretation of defending the constitution in this case would change.

Mongo
2/27/2011, 12:13 AM
To require the executive branch to enforce unconstitutional laws would be to require the President to disregard his oath about defending the constitution.

Rilly? So it is Constitutional for him to ignore the law making/enforcing rules of the Constitution set aside, when the president Constitutionally disagrees?

Get back when your logic isnt circular

jkjsooner
2/27/2011, 12:14 AM
It isn't that he's over-stepping -- it's that he's under-stepping by failing to perform his sworn Constitutional duty.

It's a Constitutional duty and responsibility for the Executive branch to enforce and uphold the laws passed by the legislative branch. The President has the power to veto legislation, but once it becomes law the President has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the law. It isn't up to the President to decide what is Constitutional or not Constitutional and enforce the law accordingly.

I hate DOMA, and I also think it's unconstitutional. However, it happens to be the law and Obama has a responsibility to enforce and execute the laws passed by Congress.

I'll just point out that Jefferson disagreed with you.

jkjsooner
2/27/2011, 12:25 AM
Rilly? So it is Constitutional for him to ignore the law making/enforcing rules of the Constitution set aside, when the president Constitutionally disagrees?

Get back when your logic isnt circular

His primary responsibility is to defend the constitution. Executing the law could be considered secondary to the primary responsibility. There is no contradiction or circular logic here.

I've stated how this all works. The legislative branch passes a law. The executive feels that the law is unconstitutional and disregards the law. Someone sues the executive and the courts rule on the constitutionality and possibly forces the executive to enforce the law. The executive can now enforce the law without constitutional objections as the courts have settled the constitutionality of the issue.

What if congress passed a law and it was quickly found unconstitutional, then congress passes the exact same law yet again - maybe with a slight wording change? Would the executive again be charged with enforcing the law?

What about the situation where a ruling in effect makes a myriad of laws unconstitutional (by any rational interpretation of the ruling) yet the ruling was not specifically addressing these other laws. Would the executive branch be forced to continue to enforce all the other laws until each one was addressed by the courts?

At least each of the last 3 Presidents have made the argument for executive disregard. I would bet almost every President has done so and as I've stated before this goes back all the way to Jefferson.

Blue
2/27/2011, 12:28 AM
I'll just point out that Jefferson disagreed with you.

[C. Sheen] Yeah well Jeffersons a *****. [/C. Sheen]

Mongo
2/27/2011, 12:34 AM
I drink with Jefferson on our bowling tournies tuesdays and thursdays. He totally said jkj shouldnt put words in his mouth or think his interpretations of his thoughts and words as gold

Mongo
2/27/2011, 12:36 AM
Meh, I am done. Anyone here can argue their side, and fall on deaf ears. I am included on both sides. Sorry for piping in

jkjsooner
2/27/2011, 12:49 AM
I drink with Jefferson on our bowling tournies tuesdays and thursdays. He totally said jkj shouldnt put words in his mouth or think his interpretations of his thoughts and words as gold

I've found a couple of accounts that state that Jefferson did in fact stop enforcing the Aliens and Sedition Acts when he became President.

Almost every article I can find states that he pardoned those convincted of the acts and it would be hard to believe that he pardoned all offenders yet continued to aggressively enforce the law.

So, yeah, I think it's safe to say that I am not putting words in Jefferson's mouth.

Mongo
2/27/2011, 12:53 AM
what are your thoughts on big tittied blondes? Can we find common ground with them?

Mongo
2/27/2011, 12:54 AM
Or dutch ovens? Pro dutch or anti dutch?

StoopTroup
2/27/2011, 01:06 AM
Double Dutch?

jkjsooner
2/27/2011, 01:20 AM
And here's a little insight into how John Adams viewed laws that were unconsitutional:


Finally, writing as “Novanglus” in 1774, Adams argued that if the Tea Act
were unconstitutional, then the “act of parliament is null and void, and it is
lawful to oppose and resist it.”215 Thus, on the eve of the Revolution, Adams
believed that unconstitutional laws should be ignored and opposed on the
grounds that they were not laws at all.

Given, this was in an era prior to judicial review but it's hard to believe that judicial review would have changed either Adams or Jefferson's opinions on the role of the executive.

jkjsooner
2/27/2011, 01:20 AM
what are your thoughts on big tittied blondes? Can we find common ground with them?

I like.

Mongo
2/27/2011, 02:04 AM
I like.

I like small tittied blondes. I guess we cant:D

StoopTroup
2/27/2011, 04:29 AM
I like the way they feel in my hands

jkjsooner
2/27/2011, 10:31 AM
I like small tittied blondes. I guess we cant:D

Kinda depends on how big. Anything bigger than a D can be kind of embarrassing in public. I think a man needs a DD woman at home to play with and a B/C woman with a nice figure to take home to mom and to go out in public with.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/27/2011, 11:21 AM
It isn't that he's over-stepping -- it's that he's under-stepping by failing to perform his sworn Constitutional duty.

It's a Constitutional duty and responsibility for the Executive branch to enforce and uphold the laws passed by the legislative branch. The President has the power to veto legislation, but once it becomes law the President has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the law. It isn't up to the President to decide what is Constitutional or not Constitutional and enforce the law accordingly.

I hate DOMA, and I also think it's unconstitutional. However, it happens to be the law and Obama has a responsibility to enforce and execute the laws passed by Congress.

This isn't about enforcing the law. Obama is simply choosing not to defend it in a court challenge. It's not like he's mandating Antonin Scalia to perform same-sex marriages at the White House, or ignoring the IRS if they were to allow same-sex married couples to file joint tax returns.

The Act fails the equal protection clause of the constitution.

Oh, and Newt is running for President and needs the cultural conservative base to get the nomination. I understand he's already been married to three women just to prove how much he believes in the one-man-one-at-a-time-woman concept of marriage.

47straight
2/27/2011, 01:16 PM
Gays can get married, anytime anywhere. DOMA just lets the government not enforce the marital contract, or defend it in court.

soonercruiser
2/27/2011, 09:38 PM
It isn't that he's over-stepping -- it's that he's under-stepping by failing to perform his sworn Constitutional duty.

It's a Constitutional duty and responsibility for the Executive branch to enforce and uphold the laws passed by the legislative branch. The President has the power to veto legislation, but once it becomes law the President has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the law. It isn't up to the President to decide what is Constitutional or not Constitutional and enforce the law accordingly.

I hate DOMA, and I also think it's unconstitutional. However, it happens to be the law and Obama has a responsibility to enforce and execute the laws passed by Congress.

Good post SicEm!
This is the essence of the situation.
I can't wait until Obama tells Holder to challenge all the states "Right to Work" laws.
:rolleyes:

soonercruiser
2/27/2011, 09:40 PM
His primary responsibility is to defend the constitution. Executing the law could be considered secondary to the primary responsibility. There is no contradiction or circular logic here.

I've stated how this all works. The legislative branch passes a law. The executive feels that the law is unconstitutional and disregards the law. Someone sues the executive and the courts rule on the constitutionality and possibly forces the executive to enforce the law. The executive can now enforce the law without constitutional objections as the courts have settled the constitutionality of the issue.

What if congress passed a law and it was quickly found unconstitutional, then congress passes the exact same law yet again - maybe with a slight wording change? Would the executive again be charged with enforcing the law?

What about the situation where a ruling in effect makes a myriad of laws unconstitutional (by any rational interpretation of the ruling) yet the ruling was not specifically addressing these other laws. Would the executive branch be forced to continue to enforce all the other laws until each one was addressed by the courts?

At least each of the last 3 Presidents have made the argument for executive disregard. I would bet almost every President has done so and as I've stated before this goes back all the way to Jefferson.

3 Presidents? How many Presidents have we had that kept their oath of office?
That just goes to show......
:pop:

soonercruiser
2/27/2011, 09:45 PM
This isn't about enforcing the law. Obama is simply choosing not to defend it in a court challenge. It's not like he's mandating Antonin Scalia to perform same-sex marriages at the White House, or ignoring the IRS if they were to allow same-sex married couples to file joint tax returns.

The Act fails the equal protection clause of the constitution.

Oh, and Newt is running for President and needs the cultural conservative base to get the nomination. I understand he's already been married to three women just to prove how much he believes in the one-man-one-at-a-time-woman concept of marriage.

Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Edwards......
:pop:

sooneron
2/28/2011, 12:36 AM
This is why I said "once again".

His appointing "Czars" to avoid the need for confirmation by the Senate is but one example.

Kinda like how Reagan started that?:pop:

SanJoaquinSooner
2/28/2011, 12:59 AM
Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Edwards......
:pop: Cultural conservatives were hardly their base.

HBick
2/28/2011, 03:05 AM
Newt Gingrich is just trying to twist this around to make it something that it is not.

He's saving face with his voter pool because he's getting ready to form an exploratory committee about running for Pres in 2012.

How funny will it be if the 2012 election comes down to gay marriage? Oh that would be grand, with all the reasons people have to hate each respective candidate (Obama and in this scenario Gingrich), their personal views on whether two guys or two gals can enter into a civil union would be the deciding factor.

It'd be like reality television, but a presidential election :pop:

Midtowner
2/28/2011, 09:25 AM
Who knew?

You'd think Conservatives would be celebrating the government cutting back and focusing on "core services." I can't imagine they'd want the President, in his discretionary wisdom, to authorize government resources to be used for a patently unconstitutional purpose.

And it's not like DOMA will go undefended. There are plenty of private groups who would be allowed to intervene.

TUSooner
2/28/2011, 09:58 AM
The Republican Party, which can't stop behaving like a spoiled 3-year-old deprived of a cookie, is the biggest obstacle to rational fiscal conservatism in the USA today. You want to impeach a President (ANY President) whenever a discretionary act displeases you?! Then f*** you.

jkjsooner
2/28/2011, 10:38 AM
3 Presidents? How many Presidents have we had that kept their oath of office?
That just goes to show......
:pop:

I said at least the last three. My guess is almost all of them have done this. Like I said, I listed a fourth in Thomas Jefferson.

Here is something else I found. Notice that even Scalia agrees with me.


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).

GKeeper316
2/28/2011, 03:13 PM
This President apparently does not recognize that we have three branches of Government. The legislative has passed this law. The judicial has not declared it to be improper in any fashion. The executive is now tasked with executing it.

If the executive branch believes the law to be ill-advised, it has the choice of encouraging the legislative to revisit the matter or ask the judicial to rule on the matter.

This president is simply side stepping the foundations of our government once again. It is a slippery slope indeed that can lead to despotism if unchecked. The check should come from the legislative as suggested by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

from wiki:



Section 3 of the law—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in July 2010.[1] (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/#cite_note-metroweekly-0)[2] (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/#cite_note-baywindows-1) This decision was appealed in October 2010.[3] (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/#cite_note-2) On February 23, 2011, Attorney General (http://www.soonerfans.com/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General) Eric Holder (http://www.soonerfans.com/wiki/Eric_Holder) announced that the Justice Department (http://www.soonerfans.com/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) would cease legal defense of the Act's Section 3 at the direction of President Barack Obama (http://www.soonerfans.com/wiki/Barack_Obama), who had reached a conclusion that Section 3 was unconstitutional.[4] (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/#cite_note-HolderPressRelease-3) However, the administration intends to enforce the law until it is either repealed by Congress or until the courts render "a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."


its really pretty simple... if the state is going to involve itself in the process by appointing itself issuing authority for marriage liscenses, the state is constitutionally forbidden from discriminating against anyone based on gender.

where's your righteous indignation about W's signing statements... basically amending bills on the presidents desk before he signed them into law?

TUSooner
2/28/2011, 03:48 PM
All this handwringing about the President flouting the Constitution is absurd. He took his own oath to support and defend the Constitution, that oath was not "to obey Congress in every situation." He is merely exercising his discretionary authority over the AG by telling him not to spend the time and money to litigate against challenges to a statute that he thinks is unconstitutional. Any President worth a fart makes those kinds of decisions all the time. We're not talking about Andrew Jackson thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court and herding the Cherokees off to the IT. Whether those presidential decisions are smart or popular or ultimately successful is a whole 'nother argument, but the argument is not improved by misconstruing it as a matter of constitutional restraint. When the 3 branches are in conflict, that's not a constitutional crisis it's the Constitution in action.