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.
Yes. But I didn't challenge that. I said that the state couldn't impose ID requirements that violated people's civil rights. For instance, a state cannot charge thousands of dollars for such ID, because poorer people would be effectively disenfranchised. So, perhaps before you go around smacking your head, you should read what I wrote.
Last edited by DC at the Ridge; 05-26-2011 at 10:49 AM..
It means exactly what you wrote, that the administration would not defend the law before the Court. It does not in any way or fashion mean that the administration will not enforce the law until the Court rules on its Constitutionality.
Seems to me that not defending it would have the same effect as not enforcing it.
Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law.
Why was the DOJ still after it?
The Supreme Court says that the U.S. Congress is legally schizophrenic.
"As of 1983, the employees of Alaska, "the only State to withdraw from the system, and of Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Ohio, which never chose to participate in the system," were not covered by Social Security. H. R. Rep. No. 98-25, at 17. Each of those States, however, was party to a § 418 Agreement that provided coverage to local government employees."
Ex Post Facto reneging on a contract between a State and the U.S. Congress is a form of indian-giving schizophrenia allowed by law, says the United States Supreme Court.
The fact that the OP doesn't even know the difference between precedent and precedence clearly indicates he has no business discussing Constitutional law.
When did our education system stop teaching people how government and law works?
Arizona can enforce the e-verify program, which is a great start to getting rid of illegals, pushing them into liberal states that welcome them with open arms.
Seems to me that not defending it would have the same effect as not enforcing it.
If I were to accurately respond to your "seems to me" I would in all likelihood run afoul of the moderators. Suffice it to say that if you can't understand the distinction between carrying out an act while refusing to defend the act being carried out and the out and out refusal to carry out an act there isn't much hope that anything other than a lighting strike or a burning bush can help you to do so.
Seems to me that not defending it would have the same effect as not enforcing it.
You are exactly right. This is what obama does best, ignore laws he doesn't like and refuse to defend laws that are on the books.
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.
