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.
The constitution specifically gives the powers to congress and to the president. There is no issue here for the courts to decide. It is de facto discrimination and in that case it is appropriate for the President to call his teams to see that it ends.
You're funny....you completely missed the JUDICIAL (courts) part of the government.
3 branches of the government, not 2.
Was that intentional? Or an intellectual burp?
So it's "in fact" discrimination?
Says who?
Obama (who can't find his birth certificate, and neither can the state he was born in) and congress?
You're alright with government when you approve of what its stance is?
And according to you, it worked the same for going to war with Iraq.
President said "do it" and so did congmess (Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Fienstien, Clinton, Snookie, etc. - all the fools).
You ok with that?
Or are there "special circumstances" where Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Clinton, Frankenstein votes don't count after they are already counted?
I would suspect that congress will appoint someone as a "friend of the court" to continue to defend the law until it is determined to be unconstitutional or otherwise.
That would require both houses and the Senate would not do it. The GOP is being painted into a corner of representing bigots. If they protest the Obama decision too much they will fall into that trap. The GOP's bigoted attitude in this area is what prevents moderate gay people from even considering voting Republican. Bucks ignorant comment on TV about gays, certainly cost him enough gay votes that the close Colorado Senate election went to the Dems.
That would require both houses and the Senate would not do it. The GOP is being painted into a corner of representing bigots. If they protest the Obama decision too much they will fall into that trap. The GOP's bigoted attitude in this area is what prevents moderate gay people from even considering voting Republican. Bucks ignorant comment on TV about gays, certainly cost him enough gay votes that the close Colorado Senate election went to the Dems.
The world and life, in a day, is a lot bigger than gays getting "married".
It's such a shame that anyone would revolve their vote around around a gay marriage issue.
But, whatever!
Just let them have it already so life, for everyone else, can move on.
Gay divorce will be "special" too, won't it?
Can't imagine the frigging drama surrounding that issue....
The President can not just ignore a law it must be repealed and that must be done by the courts. He can give his opinion on the issue but he can not just decide which laws to uphold and which to not. What is a President decided that woman being allowed to vote was a law he/she did not like, should they be able to just stop defending it? No, this is no different.
Still not true:
"In fact, the very man who argued DoJ doesn't have to defend every law on the books is a man named John Roberts.
... The third, and smallest, category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional. The most famous such case was probably U.S. v. Lovett, in 1946. More recently, after the first President Bush vetoed the "must-carry" provisions of a cable television bill on constitutional grounds and Congress overrode the veto, the Bush (41) Administration declined to defend the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions. "
"In fact, the very man who argued DoJ doesn't have to defend every law on the books is a man named John Roberts.
... The third, and smallest, category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional. The most famous such case was probably U.S. v. Lovett, in 1946. More recently, after the first President Bush vetoed the "must-carry" provisions of a cable television bill on constitutional grounds and Congress overrode the veto, the Bush (41) Administration declined to defend the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions. "
I truly wonder what would happen if/WHEN DOMA is repealed and Same Sex Marriage is made national. Really would love to see people's faces .. you know.. on a subject that totally has no impact in their lives ............. AT ALL... lmao!
America could take even more steps forward if people like yourself would stop advocating racist and discriminatory treatment based on past events...
That's the price you pay for perpetrating and benefiting from almost 400 years of racism in the North American continent.
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.
