rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Feb 23, 2011 13:58:54 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 23, 2011 14:02:56 GMT -5
The Justice Department has no authority to "yield" or decide not to enforce DOMA because the Justice Department enforces the law. It does not determine the Constitutionality of laws. What it should really be concerned about is making sure it is not in contempt of court by enforcing the law that HAS been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL: ObamaCare. Congress should be taking note as it may be necessary to use political tactics to force Holder out, and/or impeach the President if he can't manage to keep his oath of office.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,120
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 23, 2011 14:06:46 GMT -5
The Times They Are a-Changin.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 3:16:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 14:09:52 GMT -5
Well-- it IS campaign time again...
Even though there is so much going on right now that is really serious and important, there are still one issue voters out there. Time to reel them in. I could care less who marries who, by the way.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 23, 2011 14:13:24 GMT -5
Chaning for the better. But locking down the rest of the the liberals and cleaning up the mess is going to take several more years. Oh, and krickett-- I think you nailed it. And I think that Obama's strategy is to lure the Republican Party into a fight-- he is daring them to shut down the government over the budget, and daring them to impeach him on a host of issues. He thinks these things were unpopular and that's why Republicans lost in 1996 following the budget battle and the drive for impeachment. In truth, Republicans lost in 1996 and 1998 because they gave in. Not because they picked a fight, but because they laid down after picking the fight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 3:16:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 14:13:33 GMT -5
LAWS, paul?? You mean like the law that people cannot come in to our country without permission?? Aren't you silly!
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Feb 23, 2011 14:13:35 GMT -5
...I wonder what's the next federal statute POTUS will choose not to uphold... hmm...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 3:16:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 14:16:07 GMT -5
We'll see, been there-- lots of other one issue voters out there......
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 23, 2011 14:25:28 GMT -5
The Justice Department has no authority to "yield" or decide not to enforce DOMA because the Justice Department enforces the law. It does not determine the Constitutionality of laws. What it should really be concerned about is making sure it is not in contempt of court by enforcing the law that HAS been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL: ObamaCare. Congress should be taking note as it may be necessary to use political tactics to force Holder out, and/or impeach the President if he can't manage to keep his oath of office. Yea but didn't Obama just issue a decree that the law is unconstitutional and therefore is discriminatory against gays??? So he instructed the DOJ to NOT enforce this law because he doesn't like it.....OK.. but I thought he was a President and NOT a Monarch who can decree what laws that were passed by our congress that he doesn't like or agree with?? Doesn't the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of our existing laws and NOT the President??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 3:16:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 14:47:49 GMT -5
Good point, PI. Someone better inform King Obama.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 23, 2011 14:51:03 GMT -5
...I wonder what's the next federal statute POTUS will choose not to uphold... hmm... Strange idea from a former "constitutional professor"
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 16:06:54 GMT -5
The Justice Department has no authority to "yield" or decide not to enforce DOMA because the Justice Department enforces the law. It does not determine the Constitutionality of laws. What it should really be concerned about is making sure it is not in contempt of court by enforcing the law that HAS been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL: ObamaCare. Congress should be taking note as it may be necessary to use political tactics to force Holder out, and/or impeach the President if he can't manage to keep his oath of office. Yea but didn't Obama just issue a decree that the law is unconstitutional and therefore is discriminatory against gays??? So he instructed the DOJ to NOT enforce this law because he doesn't like it.....OK.. but I thought he was a President and NOT a Monarch who can decree what laws that were passed by our congress that he doesn't like or agree with?? Doesn't the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of our existing laws and NOT the President?? Obama is not telling anyone to not to enforce the law. The justice department is releasing a statement that it feels that the law is not unconstitutional that it will no longer be able to defend its constitutionality in court. They are remaining a party in the cases, but do not support the constitutionality of the law. Their responsibility to to uphold the constitution, if they don't believe this to be constitutionally legal then they shouldn't support it.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 23, 2011 16:23:15 GMT -5
Chaning for the better. But locking down the rest of the the liberals and cleaning up the mess is going to take several more years. Oh, and krickett-- I think you nailed it. And I think that Obama's strategy is to lure the Republican Party into a fight-- he is daring them to shut down the government over the budget, and daring them to impeach him on a host of issues. He thinks these things were unpopular and that's why Republicans lost in 1996 following the budget battle and the drive for impeachment. In truth, Republicans lost in 1996 and 1998 because they gave in. Not because they picked a fight, but because they laid down after picking the fight. Actually I think I just read a suggestion from the new folks in Washington, not yet in a bill but they are trying to get together privatly to thrash it out first, all those liberals, forget the locking down. Remember those internment camps that the Japanese Americans were interned during the second WW, the property is still government owned and while the barracks are gone, and if the Tea Party will ok the $ to rebuild them, they , Tea Party, like the idea , but "the cost , the cost", they keep saying, they want them reconstatuted, and then , yup, in they go. Oh not all Liberals, actually they would love it but they agree , "the cost, the cost" , but the leaders of and the out spoken ones, {sigh, Kricett , you going to come visit me ?} to be put there for the duration and who knows how long that, duration , will be, but they are seriouse and it is playing very well with a lot of those Washington folks....even with the cry of the TP, "the cost, the cost " ;D
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 23, 2011 16:27:57 GMT -5
So by their logic, the 26 state Atty Generals should not be expected to enforce the implementation of Obamacare (that they feel to be unconstitutional)
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 16:30:44 GMT -5
So by their logic, the 26 state Atty Generals should not be expected to enforce the implementation of Obamacare (that they feel to be unconstitutional) You are confusing enforce with defend, again. Are the 26 states Atty Generals defending Obamacare in court? Would you expect them to if they do not believe it to be constitutional?
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 23, 2011 16:37:42 GMT -5
So by their logic, the 26 state Atty Generals should not be expected to enforce the implementation of Obamacare (that they feel to be unconstitutional) You are confusing enforce with defend, again. Are the 26 states Atty Generals defending Obamacare in court? Would you expect them to if they do not believe it to be constitutional? No they are in court arguing against it - but by Holder's logic they could just deem it unconstitutional on their own and by pass the court system
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 16:45:23 GMT -5
You are confusing enforce with defend, again. Are the 26 states Atty Generals defending Obamacare in court? Would you expect them to if they do not believe it to be constitutional? No they are in court arguing against it - but by Holder's logic they could just deem it unconstitutional on their own and by pass the court system Bypass, just how are they bypassing the courts? They are continuing as a party in the cases. The cases will go to the supreme court. That is not bypassing it. The Attny Generals of the states fighting Obamacare have already deemed it unconstitutional what is why they are fighting it. They are no different than Holder, except Holder is not fighting against it he is leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide. He is doing exactly what he is suppose to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 16:47:18 GMT -5
Section 3 of 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.
They are enforcing the laws just like they are suppose to.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 23, 2011 16:48:14 GMT -5
No they are in court arguing against it - but by Holder's logic they could just deem it unconstitutional on their own and by pass the court system Bypass, just how are they bypassing the courts? They are continuing as a party in the cases. The cases will go to the supreme court. That is not bypassing it. The Attny Generals of the states fighting Obamacare have already deemed it unconstitutional what is why they are fighting it. They are no different than Holder, except Holder is not fighting against it he is leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide. He is doing exactly what he is suppose to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. That is not the take I get on it - if DOJ doesn't defend a case - the complaining side wins be default
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 17:02:30 GMT -5
Bypass, just how are they bypassing the courts? They are continuing as a party in the cases. The cases will go to the supreme court. That is not bypassing it. The Attny Generals of the states fighting Obamacare have already deemed it unconstitutional what is why they are fighting it. They are no different than Holder, except Holder is not fighting against it he is leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide. He is doing exactly what he is suppose to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. That is not the take I get on it - if DOJ doesn't defend a case - the complaining side wins be default No Congress can defend it;
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 23, 2011 17:08:59 GMT -5
But I bet he still defends Affirmative Action which unconstitutionally discriminates against non-minorities (if there is such a thing anymore). More hypocrisy from the master of it...
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Feb 23, 2011 17:16:27 GMT -5
Section 3 of 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. They are enforcing the laws just like they are suppose to. Not to clutter up a good argument with facts but since when is marriage a federal issue? Marriage always has been and always will be a states right not the feds. Unless there was an amendment to the constitution that I managed to sleep through.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 17:25:00 GMT -5
Section 3 of 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. They are enforcing the laws just like they are suppose to. Not to clutter up a good argument with facts but since when is marriage a federal issue? Marriage always has been and always will be a states right not the feds. Unless there was an amendment to the constitution that I managed to sleep through. Marriage contracts and enforcement has been a federal issue for some time - see Full Faith and Credit Clause. Marriage is also a federal issue since the IRS decided to allow special circumstances for married individuals.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 23, 2011 18:00:42 GMT -5
Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman: In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard. Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply. After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination. Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3. The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional. Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of 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. 11-222Attorney General www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 23, 2011 18:08:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 3:16:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 19:01:31 GMT -5
on the affirmative action thought, jkapp. I managed to get permanently banned from the old money boards as a "RACIST" for trying to argue that very idea.... so I think I will say no more. LOL!!!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,120
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 23, 2011 19:03:54 GMT -5
If I remember correctly it was how you said it krickitt.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 3:16:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 19:11:51 GMT -5
It's called sarcasm, tenn.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 23, 2011 19:42:02 GMT -5
Here's the immediate practical effect of this change:
-The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it.
-The government will stop defending the law in two court cases, in New York and Connecticut, where the law has been challenged, and in any other cases challenging the law.
-If the law is to be defended, members of Congress would have to step up and join those lawsuits.
In the statement, Holder argued that the legal landscape has changed since the Defense of Marriage Act was passed 15 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. He mentioned the Supreme Court's ruling striking down criminal laws against homosexuality, the repeal of the military's Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, and the fact that several lower courts have found the DOMA law unconstitutional.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 22:04:19 GMT -5
I'll post it one more time for the people that missed it. There is a difference between enforcement and defending. This is is the statement released by the justice department. They are not telling anyone to not enforce it, they are saying that the justice department will not defend it. Congress can defend it if they want. I really don't understand why people who support DOMA would want Holder defending it if he and the President don't believe that it is constitutional.
|
|