Obama decides not to defend laws he doesn't agree with
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Obama decides not to defend laws he doesn't agree with
Obama decides not to defend the DOMA despite it having been ruled constitutional. he shirks his responsibilty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
On the other hand, I remember being taught that the courts were a limited branch of government in that they could not consider matters not brought before them and had no power to enforce its decisions.
However, I'm still going to go with this is the extremist we told you Obama was. I think its fair to call him a dictator at this point in a way that Bush never was. I suggest impeachment for failure to execute the duties of the job of President of the United States of America.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-wink ... 27676.html
On the other hand, I remember being taught that the courts were a limited branch of government in that they could not consider matters not brought before them and had no power to enforce its decisions.
However, I'm still going to go with this is the extremist we told you Obama was. I think its fair to call him a dictator at this point in a way that Bush never was. I suggest impeachment for failure to execute the duties of the job of President of the United States of America.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-wink ... 27676.html
Last edited by kiryan on Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Wow, that is fucking scary. As much as I agree with his intentions and motive, he is setting a disastrous precedent by attempting this. I hope to god somebody slaps him and the courts reject his action. It wouldn't be the first time the president has attempted, and successfully, to enlarge the scope of presidential power, and he wont be the last, so don't demonize him for that; however, I agree that it should be stopped somehow. On the other end of the coin, the courts are really trying their hardest to cowardly avoid this issue, and that is equally disgusting in my eyes.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
he is not setting a precedent because i am gonna take a guess and say that i don't think he is the first elected public official to decide not to enforce something he disagrees with.
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
less than two weeks ago republicans were ordering their GOP ringleaders to order their respective states to not enforce health care laws...
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
When he took his oath of office, President Obama swore to uphold the Constitution. He didn't swear to defer to another branch of government on the question. He is entirely within his rights to determine that DOMA is unconstitutional and refuse to have his Attorney General defend lawsuits against it. Certainly you can disagree with him on the question. However, elections DO have consequences.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Actually, the administration is still enforcing the law. They simply aren't defending challenges to it in court, leaving it up to the congress to appoint special counsel.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
That's absolutely correct Teflor. And really I have no problem at all with the Executive branch making it's own determination on what laws it will defend. I'd like to see more of that actually.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
It's expected. The timing is suspect, as I think Obama tossed this on a freshly Republican Congress in order to defame the Republicans. The truth is that the Democrat led congress would have appointed special counsel to defend DOMA as well.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
This was always his plan B.... he asked them to be patient while he fought the healthcare battle.. I assume because he thought it would cause unnecessary trouble in 2010.
He won't leave office with immigration reform and gay marriage unaddresed. I fully expect to see a presidential pardon for all illegal immigrants before this is done.
He won't leave office with immigration reform and gay marriage unaddresed. I fully expect to see a presidential pardon for all illegal immigrants before this is done.
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
kiryan wrote:I think its fair to call him a dictator at this point in a way that Bush never was.
Right, because if there's one thing Dictators are known for it's NOT enforcing laws. :roll:
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Hey dipshit, dictators are known for doing whatever the fuk they want.
Enforce a law, don't enforce a law, make up a law, take power etc... whatever they want irrespective of whats traditional legal or right.
Enforce a law, don't enforce a law, make up a law, take power etc... whatever they want irrespective of whats traditional legal or right.
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Corth wrote:That's absolutely correct Teflor. And really I have no problem at all with the Executive branch making it's own determination on what laws it will defend. I'd like to see more of that actually.
Doesn't that give the executive too much control over the legislative, peripherally?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Kifle wrote:Corth wrote:That's absolutely correct Teflor. And really I have no problem at all with the Executive branch making it's own determination on what laws it will defend. I'd like to see more of that actually.
Doesn't that give the executive too much control over the legislative, peripherally?
The judicial branch serves to moderate that specific influence.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Kifle, Congree can impeach the president if they want.
Here I am repeating rush fox and glenn beck before anyone suggested impeachment. I wonder how I did that as a brain dead conservative just repeating what they haven't said yet.
FYI, I don't agree with Newt's points in a formal/administrative/legal perspective... but I do agree Obama should enforce and defend the law.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingric ... /id/387455
Here I am repeating rush fox and glenn beck before anyone suggested impeachment. I wonder how I did that as a brain dead conservative just repeating what they haven't said yet.
FYI, I don't agree with Newt's points in a formal/administrative/legal perspective... but I do agree Obama should enforce and defend the law.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingric ... /id/387455
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
People have been saying to Impeach Obama since at least last August: http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/mis ... obamacare/
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Kiryan,
Presidents are sworn to uphold the constitution. Should a president find a law to be unconstitutional, they are obligated to both enforce it constitutionally and fight it at the same time.
It's up to the courts to decide whether or not it's actually constitutional. It's also up to congress to preempt the courts either by making it a part of the constitution, defend it with special counsel, or strike it from the US code.
This so much is all written down somewhere...
Presidents are sworn to uphold the constitution. Should a president find a law to be unconstitutional, they are obligated to both enforce it constitutionally and fight it at the same time.
It's up to the courts to decide whether or not it's actually constitutional. It's also up to congress to preempt the courts either by making it a part of the constitution, defend it with special counsel, or strike it from the US code.
This so much is all written down somewhere...
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Kifle wrote:Corth wrote:That's absolutely correct Teflor. And really I have no problem at all with the Executive branch making it's own determination on what laws it will defend. I'd like to see more of that actually.
Doesn't that give the executive too much control over the legislative, peripherally?
The judicial branch serves to moderate that specific influence.
I'm not an expert on constitutional law by any stretch of the imagination. The distinction here I think is between enforcing the law, which the executive is obliged to do, and defending it in court. It seems that Congress has the ability to jump in and defend the Constitutionality of their acts so the concern over executive control of the legislature seems moot.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
I'm a little uncomfortable with the executive branch wielding this scope of power... but it's there, in the Constitution.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
I don't think the constitution prohibits any branch from executing their powers fully at their discretion... while I agree Obama SHOULD enforce the law and defend the law... I don't think it is not an issue of constitutionality...
I believe the constitution expects each branch to go off the reservation, but created a system where either of the other two branches can reign that branch back in.
I could be wrong, never really thought about it before this is just my first reaction... and it sets a terrible precedence.
I believe the constitution expects each branch to go off the reservation, but created a system where either of the other two branches can reign that branch back in.
I could be wrong, never really thought about it before this is just my first reaction... and it sets a terrible precedence.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Interesting article... aspects touch on similar subject... executive power to defend and enforce laws...
Judge Vinson basically ruled Obamacare unconstitutional in a lawsuit brought by 26 states. It does not issue an injunction, but seems to indicate that the decision should itself carry the weight of an injunction as far as the executive branch is concerned because he ruled it unconstitutional and the Executive branch should obey the law (that he ruled unconstitutional). DOJ has asked for "clarification" to determine whether this is an injunction or not.
"Also Monday, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire asked Vinson if she could weigh in on the suit, arguing that the state's attorney general (who is party to the suit) shouldn't stop the state from getting the benefits of the reform law."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50386.html
So apparently Washington Gov a democrat has asked for permission to weigh in on the suit... Washington's attorney general is for the suit and the governor is against it. The governor is questioning whether an AG can infringe upon the executive's branch ability/discretion to implement the law... by making the state a party to a lawsuit. It should also be noted there are at least a couple other states who wanted to join the lawsuit, but had democrat AGs who refused to join.
Also consider how Schwarzennger declined to appeal a decision that overturned a voter approved initative banning gay marriage in California. The court ruled that the defenders of the initiative didn't have standing to appeal the decision and as far as I know, the decision will stand and basically become precedent in California (and anyone else who wants to use it as precedence)... does this become a strategy to exercise more power, weakly defend laws then refuse to appeal?
I'm starting to be more concerned... it makes sense to me to interject politics into legal by challenging a law... It doesn't seem ok in the reverse though... to exercise politics by refusing to appeal or defend a law where only the state has standing to appeal. Its like a second chance to veto.
For instance, how much butthurt would you liberals feel if a newly elected Republican in 2013 decides to drop all appeals to the healthcare law? Would that be properly exercising executive discretion and allowing a lower court ruling like this set constitutional precedent?
--
On the other hand... AG is not a separate branch of government... and they are organized under executive branch... and obviously can't be "equal" to the head of the executive branch... Doesn't make a lot of sense to give them two masters... what they think is constitutional and legal vs what their boss tells them to do...
Judge Vinson basically ruled Obamacare unconstitutional in a lawsuit brought by 26 states. It does not issue an injunction, but seems to indicate that the decision should itself carry the weight of an injunction as far as the executive branch is concerned because he ruled it unconstitutional and the Executive branch should obey the law (that he ruled unconstitutional). DOJ has asked for "clarification" to determine whether this is an injunction or not.
"Also Monday, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire asked Vinson if she could weigh in on the suit, arguing that the state's attorney general (who is party to the suit) shouldn't stop the state from getting the benefits of the reform law."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50386.html
So apparently Washington Gov a democrat has asked for permission to weigh in on the suit... Washington's attorney general is for the suit and the governor is against it. The governor is questioning whether an AG can infringe upon the executive's branch ability/discretion to implement the law... by making the state a party to a lawsuit. It should also be noted there are at least a couple other states who wanted to join the lawsuit, but had democrat AGs who refused to join.
Also consider how Schwarzennger declined to appeal a decision that overturned a voter approved initative banning gay marriage in California. The court ruled that the defenders of the initiative didn't have standing to appeal the decision and as far as I know, the decision will stand and basically become precedent in California (and anyone else who wants to use it as precedence)... does this become a strategy to exercise more power, weakly defend laws then refuse to appeal?
I'm starting to be more concerned... it makes sense to me to interject politics into legal by challenging a law... It doesn't seem ok in the reverse though... to exercise politics by refusing to appeal or defend a law where only the state has standing to appeal. Its like a second chance to veto.
For instance, how much butthurt would you liberals feel if a newly elected Republican in 2013 decides to drop all appeals to the healthcare law? Would that be properly exercising executive discretion and allowing a lower court ruling like this set constitutional precedent?
--
On the other hand... AG is not a separate branch of government... and they are organized under executive branch... and obviously can't be "equal" to the head of the executive branch... Doesn't make a lot of sense to give them two masters... what they think is constitutional and legal vs what their boss tells them to do...
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
The President has a duty to defend the constitution. If the president finds an act of congress to be unconstitutional, there is a duty for the president to faithfully execute his duty according to the constitution. I _believe_ that simply directing the DOJ to stop defending the law in court is an allowed course of action.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
My understanding is that the executive branch is charged with upholding the law, and the purpose of the judiciary is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. This seems to be the executive branch moving into judicial territory. I wouldn't be comfortable with Republicans doing it, and I'm not comfortable with Democrats doing it. It seems like an expansion of executive powers, something that I'm quite tired of seeing.
This seems similar to cops refusing to write each other tickets. Law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to decide which laws to selectively enforce.
This seems similar to cops refusing to write each other tickets. Law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to decide which laws to selectively enforce.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Believe it or not, Ragorn, it wasn't always clear that the Supreme Court could bind the other (equal) branches with respect to it's determination of constitutionality. The famous case of Marbury v. Madison cleared that up. But the point is that from the very beginning it was understood that all three branches must abide by their own independent understanding of the constitution. I don't think that an Executive who is faithfully carrying out his oath of office could ethically have his AG defend a law in court that it believes to be unconstitutional.
BTW: I strongly recommend anyone interested in this topic to read the wiki entry on Marbury v. Madison (linked below). It's actually quite fascinating. We take the 'Judicial Review' function of the Supreme Court for granted, but actually that power was ambiguous at best based on the language of the constitution. A lot of people consider the Marbury case to be an epic (and unnecessary) power grab by the Supreme Court. But regardless, Marbury represents the first time in recorded history that a legislative act was struck down by a judge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
BTW: I strongly recommend anyone interested in this topic to read the wiki entry on Marbury v. Madison (linked below). It's actually quite fascinating. We take the 'Judicial Review' function of the Supreme Court for granted, but actually that power was ambiguous at best based on the language of the constitution. A lot of people consider the Marbury case to be an epic (and unnecessary) power grab by the Supreme Court. But regardless, Marbury represents the first time in recorded history that a legislative act was struck down by a judge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Ragorn wrote:My understanding is that the executive branch is charged with upholding the law, and the purpose of the judiciary is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.
The president is still upholding the law, he is simply not defending the law against challenges in court.
Ragorn wrote:This seems to be the executive branch moving into judicial territory. I wouldn't be comfortable with Republicans doing it, and I'm not comfortable with Democrats doing it. It seems like an expansion of executive powers, something that I'm quite tired of seeing.
The law is still being enforced.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Fair enough.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Obama decides not to enforce laws he doesn't agree with
Really, the title of the thread is untrue or misleading. Makes the conversation more difficult.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Obama decides not to defend laws he doesn't agree with
title changed to defend not enforce.
Return to “Current Events & Politics”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests