Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So we go from overturning the federal legislative process with Obama's position on the Defense of Marriage - to overturning the vote of the people in California.
Harris asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to let same-sex weddings resume in California while the court reviews Prop. 8. The case is on hold while the state Supreme Court decides whether the measure's sponsors can appeal a federal judge's decision declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional.
Even if backers have legal standing, Harris said, "the likelihood that the appeal will succeed on the merits has been substantially diminished" by the Obama administration's declaration last week that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
Just for clarity - there are no merits, just I disrespect for the law making process, and a warped viewpoint.
Do you even have know what 'merits' mean in a legal sense? I tend to think you don't.
However, to be lawful and consistent, the Obama administration must also immediately stop implementing the provisions from the healthcare law, as that was deemed unconstitutiuonal by a federal court recently. Instead, they are deciding to move forward on its enforcement and even making cases to courts to compel states to enact parts of the laws.
No. It's the president's prerogative as to what laws his justice department defends or chooses not to defend (and if his administration refuses to defend a law in court, congress can step in and do it). His administration views DOMA as unconstitutional, whereas it views the healthcare bill as constitutional. There is nothing unlawful or non-consistent about holding different positions about the constitutionality of different laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
You cannot have it both ways - otherwise, all this talk about DOMA being unconstitutional and hence not being enforced is playing a political game.
Get your facts straight. The Obama administration is still enforcing DOMA - they are just no longer defending its constitutionality in court. Here is part of the administration's press release:
"DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court."
While off the topic of this thread, I have to ask: Why?
The President doesn't believe the health care law to be unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter. A Federal Judge believes it is. Obama is not king as much as you would like that to be. He is not the Police, Judge and Executioner in one. He needs to follow the laws like everyone else.
It doesn't matter. A Federal Judge believes it is. Obama is not king as much as you would like that to be. He is not the Police, Judge and Executioner in one. He needs to follow the laws like everyone else.
Just, because a district court judge says something is unconstitutional doesn't mean the losing party has to give up any potential appeals, and not ask for a stay.
It doesn't matter. A Federal Judge believes it is. Obama is not king as much as you would like that to be. He is not the Police, Judge and Executioner in one. He needs to follow the laws like everyone else.
And three others Federal Judges don't.
By the way the President as head of the executive branch is the police and the executioner. Getting only one out of three right, I would suggest that you might take time out of your busy day to READ the damned Constitution.
Just, because a district court judge says something is unconstitutional doesn't mean the losing party has to give up any potential appeals, and not ask for a stay.
They can most certainly do so. But the fact is - it hasn't happened. Yet.
In what universe is upholding the constitution an impeachable offense?
He is responsible for bringing all cases forward to courts the way Governors of state are. He made history in just saying I am not going to defend this one.
Impeachable since he is refusing to do a major part of his job that he swore to do under oath.
It's being talked of all over the political blogs and such. Congress can Impeach Obama on this and at least they can make a major issue out of why Obama again tried to set aside the people's will over his special interests donor views and his supposed previous views.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
