ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 22:05:49 GMT -5
btw, it's only section 3 that they have an issue with, apparently the rest is fine and defendable.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 23, 2011 22:16:31 GMT -5
Let's see now, The economy is still down and out. "Realistic" Unemployment is still, basically 10% or higher Oil is now $99 a barrel and climbing, thus crippling the American economy again. Housing market is still plummeting downward Stock market is getting shaky just as Ma and Pa investors were regaining some of their losses. The Middle East is imploding, and yet we are waiting to send the Secretary of State to Europe next week for a conference, that does not even cover the Middle East political upheaval.
And the President has decided to get involved with the gay issue in this country. Krickett is right. The President has announced his 2011/2012 campaign strategy. It does not get much better than this. And yet, President Bush was the idiot...... Talk about Presidential responsibility to his country.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 23, 2011 22:19:43 GMT -5
Let's see now, The economy is still down and out. "Realistic" Unemployment is still, basically 10% or higher Oil is now $99 a barrel and climbing, thus crippling the American economy again. Housing market is still plummeting downward Stock market is getting shaky just as Ma and Pa investors were regaining some of their losses. The Middle East is imploding, and yet we are waiting to send the Secretary of State to Europe next week for a conference, that does not even cover the Middle East political upheaval. And the President has decided to get involved with the gay issue in this country. Krickett is right. The President has announced his 2011/2012 campaign strategy. It does not get much better than this. And yet, President Bush was the idiot...... Talk about Presidential responsibility to his country. Just think about the money he will be saving by not having the Justice Department waste it's time trying to defend something that is unconstitutional. All it took was one letter, about 20 minuets of a law clerks time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 5:33:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 22:33:14 GMT -5
There were court cases coming up... the timing is organic, it happened in conjunction with those cases...
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Feb 23, 2011 22:49:25 GMT -5
Let's see now, The economy is still down and out. "Realistic" Unemployment is still, basically 10% or higher Oil is now $99 a barrel and climbing, thus crippling the American economy again. Housing market is still plummeting downward Stock market is getting shaky just as Ma and Pa investors were regaining some of their losses. The Middle East is imploding, and yet we are waiting to send the Secretary of State to Europe next week for a conference, that does not even cover the Middle East political upheaval. And the President has decided to get involved with the gay issue in this country. Krickett is right. The President has announced his 2011/2012 campaign strategy. It does not get much better than this. And yet, President Bush was the idiot...... Talk about Presidential responsibility to his country. So, what's the HoR doing? Other than deciding what's forcible rape and when women can have abortions. Boy oh boy those things make lots of jobs, don't they? How about we talk about them as being partly responsible? It's 2011, do you know where your legislation is? Obama can't sign a bill that doesn't exist, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Feb 24, 2011 11:05:51 GMT -5
<<< Obama is not telling anyone to not to enforce the law. >>>
...yes he is... <<< Just think about the money he will be saving by not having the Justice Department waste it's time trying to defend something that is unconstitutional. All it took was one letter, about 20 minuets of a law clerks time. >>>
...just as you said, he's "ruling" on the constitutionality of a law... a judicial branch of government thing to do...
...definitiely in campaign mode, and the fact that he's overstepping executive branch powers, I for one am hoping it bites him in the butt...
...and for those that don't agree with me on this issue, smite me... ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 5:33:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 11:26:23 GMT -5
No he's not.. he's saying don't DEFEND the law... as long as the law exists... they will enforce it... but if someone brings it up to trial as unconstitutional, they will not longer defend it... The judicial system will still rule on its constitutionality...
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Feb 24, 2011 11:26:55 GMT -5
Not defending DOMA a slippery slope?George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr has written the most substantive criticism of the Obama administration's decision to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act: If that approach becomes widely adopted, then it would seem to bring a considerable power shift to the Executive Branch. Here's what I fear will happen. If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress's power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation. voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/the_slippery_slope_of_not_defe.html
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 5:33:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 11:27:32 GMT -5
oh mkitty... and don't forget the Georgia GOP that want to make every woman account for her miscarriages... to make sure they didn't do anything to cause the fetal death...
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 24, 2011 13:03:54 GMT -5
Not defending DOMA a slippery slope?George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr has written the most substantive criticism of the Obama administration's decision to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act: If that approach becomes widely adopted, then it would seem to bring a considerable power shift to the Executive Branch. Here's what I fear will happen. If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress's power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation. voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/the_slippery_slope_of_not_defe.html If the president and justice department doesn't defend a unconstitutional law, then congress can choose to defend it. It doesn't have to go undefended. btw - The Attny General is confirmed by the senate. Right!!! and here is his so called "ruling"
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Feb 25, 2011 16:43:05 GMT -5
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for ImpeachmentIn an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law. Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 25, 2011 17:40:22 GMT -5
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for ImpeachmentIn an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law. Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455“... Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional ... Roe v Wade is a court case decided by the Supreme Court. DOMA is an act of Congress. Significantly dissimilar thus making the comparison irrelevant.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 25, 2011 18:33:18 GMT -5
“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed."
No need for Newt Gingrich to even think about running for president. He doesn't know the difference between an act of congress and a case decided by the Supreme Court.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Feb 25, 2011 18:53:20 GMT -5
#39 Because it's their JOB to defend it. What a patently ridiculous argument. It' NOT their job to decide if it's constitutional or not. If they consider it to be unconstitutional, they should bring it to the Supreme Court to decide, not make legal decisions themselves.
You'd think by now that most people would be smart enough to realize that counsel's job is to argue their client's best case at all times, no matter what they think of what a client did. Their job is to be the best advocate possible, regardless of their personal opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 5:33:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 18:58:47 GMT -5
So Doma is a client now?
Sigh... once again... public service workers have no say in who they represent... which brings me to a good question... how do we develop a merit pay system for public defenders?
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 25, 2011 20:30:42 GMT -5
#39 Because it's their JOB to defend it. What a patently ridiculous argument. It' NOT their job to decide if it's constitutional or not. If they consider it to be unconstitutional, they should bring it to the Supreme Court to decide, not make legal decisions themselves. You'd think by now that most people would be smart enough to realize that counsel's job is to argue their client's best case at all times, no matter what they think of what a client did. Their job is to be the best advocate possible, regardless of their personal opinions. And if counsel (the AG) and the executive branch (or POTUS) can determine the constitutionality of a law - maybe we can begin to help pare down the national deficit by just getting rid of the Supreme Court
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 5:33:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 20:33:20 GMT -5
And the law remains in effect until the court decides on its constitutionality...
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 25, 2011 21:56:26 GMT -5
And the law remains in effect until the court decides on its constitutionality... You need to write the above in capital letters to get anyone's attention. And if that doesn't work you use the Bold function.
|
|