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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
PH presents evidence from Hamilton supporting the contention that Federal Criminal Law is limited to the District of Columbia and naval (military) properties, plus responses to acts of treason, and/or piracy on the seas, et alibi. But a separate question of Constitutional limits on Civil Law is raised by Sen. Brown of Ohio and may still be open (common law; agreements and disputes between private persons incluing questions of marriage, contacts, taxes, property, debt, etc).
May we first find clarity about a question of Enumerated Powers affected by Article IV - §1 & §2 ("full faith and credit" in Civil Law) as compared to the limits and "checks and balances" built into Article I relative to Federal authority in matters of Criminal Law? Once accompished, the manor of "proper disposal" should be more evident.
Please excuse my repetition of the Sen. S. Brown paragraph quoted earlier.
The President is required by the Constitution to refuse to enforce acts of Congress that are unconstitutional upon taking his oath of office.
If an act of Congress is clearly constitutional and the President refuses to enforce it:
The House of Representatives can choose to impeach the President for his unconstitutional acts.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no role in such impeachment.
The final check is the removal from office by the people at the next election.