PDA

View Full Version : This is getting dangerous


sonnyp
02-23-2011, 02:16 PM
obama has "decided" that an existing law on same sex marriages is, in his opinion, unconstitutional. therefore, ignoring the rule of law and our system's set of "checks and balances", he has instructed the justice department to stop defending the law, based on "his opinion".

has he now taken over the judicial branch of this government and what other "opinions of his" will discount existing laws ?

perhaps he should take a look at the federal wire act and the horseracing bill and trow them out also based on his opinion.

Tom
02-23-2011, 02:28 PM
Selective enforcement of the law.
Ripped right of the playbook of his heroes....Chavez, Castro,
Khadafy, Imadinnerjacket.....you know, the good old boys.

prospector
02-23-2011, 03:02 PM
buy more ammo

mostpost
02-23-2011, 03:37 PM
obama has "decided" that an existing law on same sex marriages is, in his opinion, unconstitutional. therefore, ignoring the rule of law and our system's set of "checks and balances", he has instructed the justice department to stop defending the law, based on "his opinion".

has he now taken over the judicial branch of this government and what other "opinions of his" will discount existing laws ?

perhaps he should take a look at the federal wire act and the horseracing bill and trow them out also based on his opinion.
What does this even mean? An existing law. What law? For or against? Where is a link to the story? Or even just tell us where you heard or read this. How do we know you're not just making this all up?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0224-gay-marriage-20110223,0,5596955.story

That is where I found the story. I don't know if it is where you found it.
The story is true. That does not mean there is anything wrong with what Obama is doing. In the first place the Justice Department, whose job it is to decide such things has come up with the same opinion. Secondly, the story doesn't say the Obama administration will not enforce the law. (You read as well as your conservative counterparts here.) The story says the administration will not defend the law in a constitutional challenge.
Step by step:
1. The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and from providing benefits to members of same.
2. The Obama administration will not recognize same sex marriages and will not provide benefits to same.
3. A same sex couple is suing to have the law overturned as unconstitutional
4. The Obama administration will not defend the law against the suit.
5. This does not mean that the same sex couple will automatically win their lawsuit and the law will be declared unconstitutional.

Without knowing the specifics of the suit, I can just say that there will be some person or group which will surely represent the side of the law.

Let me ask you this; Would you prefer the Obama administration to present an unenthusiastic defense or step aside and leave the defense up to someone who believed in it?

mostpost
02-23-2011, 03:46 PM
obama has "decided" that an existing law on same sex marriages is, in his opinion, unconstitutional. therefore, ignoring the rule of law and our system's set of "checks and balances", he has instructed the justice department to stop defending the law, based on "his opinion".

has he now taken over the judicial branch of this government and what other "opinions of his" will discount existing laws ?

perhaps he should take a look at the federal wire act and the horseracing bill and trow them out also based on his opinion.

As I said in my #4, this is not selective enforcement. Selective enforcement could be found during the administration of George W. Bush when mining companies bypassed safety regulations with impunity, the EPA ignored violations of air and water quality regulations.

sonnyp
02-23-2011, 03:53 PM
my post referenced the events as reported earlier in the day. now holder and obama are reassuring members of congress that they are not attempting to usurp their authority which appears to be an "adjustment" in their presentation and overall position. what else is new ?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage65th_ld_writethru

Tom
02-23-2011, 04:03 PM
mostie, don't hurt yourself carrying all that water.

boxcar
02-23-2011, 09:09 PM
What does this even mean? An existing law. What law? For or against? Where is a link to the story? Or even just tell us where you heard or read this. How do we know you're not just making this all up?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0224-gay-marriage-20110223,0,5596955.story

That is where I found the story. I don't know if it is where you found it.
The story is true. That does not mean there is anything wrong with what Obama is doing. In the first place the Justice Department, whose job it is to decide such things has come up with the same opinion. Secondly, the story doesn't say the Obama administration will not enforce the law. (You read as well as your conservative counterparts here.) The story says the administration will not defend the law in a constitutional challenge.
Step by step:
1. The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and from providing benefits to members of same.
2. The Obama administration will not recognize same sex marriages and will not provide benefits to same.
3. A same sex couple is suing to have the law overturned as unconstitutional
4. The Obama administration will not defend the law against the suit.
5. This does not mean that the same sex couple will automatically win their lawsuit and the law will be declared unconstitutional.

Without knowing the specifics of the suit, I can just say that there will be some person or group which will surely represent the side of the law.

Let me ask you this; Would you prefer the Obama administration to present an unenthusiastic defense or step aside and leave the defense up to someone who believed in it?

I see you don't believe in the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Obama and the Justice Dept. both overstepped their constitutionally delineated bounds of authority. Neither have the authority to declare anything "unconstitutional". That authority belongs only to the Judicial Branch of government.

All Obama did here was act unilaterally in order to circumvent the repeal process because he knew he didn't have the votes in Congress. In doing so, he bought the favor of some homosexuals and lesbians for the upcoming elections.

Now, I have questions, since you love carrying this administration's horse manure around with you in your backpack:

1.) Since the law has been declared "unconstitutional" by our Dictator-in-Chief, why would he want the Justice Dept. to "enforce" this kind of law?

2.) How can the Justice Dept. legally enforce an illegal law?

Boxcar

JustRalph
02-24-2011, 01:55 AM
buy more ammo

Always good advice........


mostie, don't hurt yourself carrying all that water.

Nice........ :lol: :lol: He is is bent over from it.

bigmack
02-24-2011, 05:16 AM
As soon as I heard of this as revealed by MegynK I thought of a few things and they all aligned with those of CK.

I wish he wouldn't rip off the material IN MY HEAD!

-1gsbamt1mE

JustRalph
02-24-2011, 05:38 AM
Let's hope tomorrow he doesn't wake up and decide the 2nd amendment isn't unconstitutional

I predict he wakes up and decides lots of new things have suddenly dawned upon him. All in the same vein as this weeks charade of concern over gay marriage. This will happen more and more as he gets closer to the election.

Any odds on Gitmo and Afghanistan dawning on him soon?

TJDave
02-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Selective enforcement of the law.


Happens every day. Those that think not haven't had the pleasure of escaping a deserved traffic ticket.

And if we're really serious about "defending marriage" we should make it more difficult to get hitched...and divorced.

The gays should marry anyone they want. It's not likely they're gonna procreate and it keeps them out of the bars.

ArlJim78
02-24-2011, 03:01 PM
this lawless regime is out of control. they've usurped both congress and the courts now. They are above it all apparently.

JustRalph
02-24-2011, 03:19 PM
Happens every day. Those that think not haven't had the pleasure of escaping a deserved traffic ticket.

And if we're really serious about "defending marriage" we should make it more difficult to get hitched...and divorced.

The gays should marry anyone they want. It's not likely they're gonna procreate and it keeps them out of the bars.

Dave, I agree with you on making it more difficult. Love the bars line.

I just realized my 2nd amendment comment saying exactly the opposite of what I wanted to say :lol: It was late

The Judge
02-24-2011, 03:38 PM
Seems as if at least one federal court if not more as rule that defining marriage is only between a man and a women in unconstitutional. So maybe Obama is on solid ground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

boxcar
02-24-2011, 05:27 PM
Seems as if at least one federal court if not more as rule that defining marriage is only between a man and a women in unconstitutional. So maybe Obama is on solid ground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

He's not on solid ground. The appeal process was already in motion when he pulled the plug. I guess he didn't want to risk losing another court decision.

And furthermore, if the Act is illegal (as in UNCONSTITUTIONAL), why did he claim he was still going to have the DOJ enforce it? On what legal grounds can the AG enforce an illegal law!? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

cj's dad
02-24-2011, 05:53 PM
The satellite state of Maryland is about to pass legislation allowing same sex marriages. Another positive:faint: for the residents here. If it comes up for a referendum, I doubt it will stay intact. Most of the continual dem support comes from Baltimore city and Prince Georges county which are both predominantly Af-Amer. The Black ministers and therefore many of their flock will not support this law.

Hopefully !!

JustRalph
02-25-2011, 03:41 AM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcoltop22.6440.ImageFile.jpg

what if? If this happen the Media would be going apeshit.