President Obama or any president may refuse to administer any law? Does he say that he will not "defend" it against constitutional challenge? Or does he signal intention to withdraw enforcement? If that, would he expose himself to impeachment speculation? Should that be raised?
I think we can discern his intention to stop enforcing this defense of marriage law. Such an attitude would be consistent with all of the behaviors and policies of his revolutionary and radical gang. Taking away citizens comfort about any issue of morality and social order fits their longtime strategies.
It looks to me as if this man intends to stick this in our face as challenge. "Stop me if you dare." The same behavior is manifest in His refusal to obey the Judge Vinson order of unconstitutionality of Obama care. Just as he sticks his finger in the eye of the judge of the off-shore oil drilling issue. How much illegal behavior do we sit still for? Or is it illegal?
Any lawyers, states attorneys, national or State officers with moxie to put this president in his place? What would he have to do before federal marshalls come to cuff him? Such a question has not come to my mind before. Maybe we need some instruction about this. I do.
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Folks, please hold off on comments for now. Rush Limbaugh & others are putting out serious misinformation on this. We need to think it though - to analyze it - before we opine. [Actually, we should never "opine" on constitutional issues, since our "opinions" are irrelevant. We must look always to the objective meaning of the Constitution.]
There is an existing discussion on "Checks & Balances" - READ it and see if you can figure this out! EACH branch of the federal government has a "check" on the other two branches. Our Framers created an elegant system of checks & balances - we do ourselves and our Posterity a grave disservice when we ignore all the checks & balances except for the check which the federal courts have on the other two branches.
In addition to the Discussion on "Checks & Balances", read this carefully: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/us-criminal-code/ The Answer is right there! Use your heads and see if you can figure it out!
I will write on it, but am finishing something else now. Thanks.
Permalink Reply by JC Daley on As a resident of AZ I can say that the Obama Admin as did the Admins before them back to Reagan--and his too--have totally ignored the laws passed to solve the problem of illegal immigration in 1986. When AZ passed SB1070 to enforce the Fed'l law at the State level 24 years later---look what we got!! SUED!!
When we have questioned why these laws were not obeyed the dominate answer is that there is "no will in DC" to do so-- none of the checks and balances provided by the Constitution are doing their jobs... So it is in the hands of WE, the People, to hold their feet to the fire. OUR checks and balances is called an ELECTION. It is why the Founding Fathers did not set term limits because the election IS the limit--it is also the people's way to impeach a President. Do YOUR job. Work to get those in Congress OUT of Congress by supporting Constitutional (originalist) candidates and get them elected. Not an overnight solution--but it is THE solution.
PH-- you can rap my knuckles now...
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on PH - Please ignore previous attempted levity. What I found in the last 10 hours (minus a couple of short naps) ended up as pages of detailed notes. I will be brief here, but preface it this way:
In chess, mine fields, and politics, one needs to look well beyond the immediate and see where pieces are likely to be 3 or moves from now, which lead me to this:
To me, the whole thing smells like a power grab.
Permalink Reply by Brimstone on Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on That was PH's point. A real President is supposed to use his best judgement to examine Constitutionality of Laws. But after watching Obama for the past 2 years, and now seeing him withhold defense for DOMA (a sacrifice for *something* that he wants more), Using his past behavioral pattern as a guide, I looked for a bigger priize he might be after. My little crystal ball gave a vision predicting a bit of circuitous trickery designed to eliminate States' Rights. That has been a goal I have heard mostly Democrats (Liberal-Progressives, Sociailst-Statists) drooling over since at least 1967. But sadly, the history efforts by some to compress our US Constitutional government into a single central power goes back farther than Abe Lincoln.
My crystal ball has a few scratches. Your crystal ball may make a prettier picture.
I hope so.
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Yes. The answer is set forth in my brief outline of "checks & balances" & in my paper on what criminal laws is Congress authorized by the Constitution to enact.
We must think in terms of PRINCIPLE, not immediate expediency. E.g., say the Senate refuses to repeal obamacare. Say there is a "law" requiring people to buy health insurance, and saying it's a felony if you don't buy it. Say YOU are President. Will you permit your AG and the US Attorneys to criminally prosecute people who don't buy health insurance?
Not if you take your Oath of office seriously. You as president have an independent obligation to preserve, protect & defend the Constitution. Your Oath is NOT to go along with whatever Congress does. Hamilton tells us over & over that a "law" which is not authorized by the Constitution is a "mere usurpation" and deserves to be treated as such. You treat the pretended "law" as a usurpation by refusing to enforce it.
This illustrates the serious damage people do when they publicly pontificate about subjects of which they are ignorant. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, etc. don't know what they are talking about when they spout off on this issue. But people hear them, believe them, are mislead, repeat it, and so mislead others. For this reason, it is immoral to speak with authority of subjects of which one is ignorant. [You won't find me spouting off about nuclear power plants, etc.]
Again, I'll write a paper on this when I finish the one I'm writing now.
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on PH - Senator Sherrod Brown (Dem-OH) is claiming the the DOMA is un-Constitutional under Article IV Section 1 ("full faith and credit clause"). In correspondence, he ignores the second sentence of clause #1 and all of Clause #2.
He cites no Constitutional references containing criminal Law; only affairs of civil law but complains about the definition in DOMA establishing mariage as between one man and one woman.
In the last few days, Brown wrote:
"I voted against DOMA in 1996 because I believe it infringes on states' rights to determine their own marriage laws. Additionally, refusing gays and lesbians the right to honor a committed relationship through civil marriage or an equivalent, such as civil unions, compromises our country's founding principle that all men are created equal. Marital status has implications for a couple's employment benefits, taxes, insurance, and many other aspects of their lives. I am working to move our country toward greater acceptance of all people, and would not support any measures intended to disenfranchise gay and lesbian Americans.
I voted against DOMA in 1996 because I believe it infringes on states' rights to determine their own marriage laws. Additionally, refusing gays and lesbians the right to honor a committed relationship through civil marriage or an equivalent, such as civil unions, compromises our country's founding principle that all men are created equal. Marital status has implications for a couple's employment benefits, taxes, insurance, and many other aspects of their lives. I am working to move our country toward greater acceptance of all people, and would not support any measures intended to disenfranchise gay and lesbian Americans."
It seems he is saying that each state must honor every other state's marriage certificates and licenses as driver's licenses and car titles are honored and accepted across state boundaries.
What say you about his contention?
Permalink Reply by Paul R Hales on Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on To my dear Paul:
I deleted the comment - and the person - to whom you are responding. I accept questions; but do not put up with personal attacks by trolls who don't know what they are talking about.
But YOU clearly understand how the elegant system of checks & balances our founders established works! Thank you!
Permalink Reply by Maureen Gerrish on © 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
