Comments

  1. says

    Not wishing to start a debate about the rights or wrongs of the DOMA; While I do not totally agree with it there is something oh so terribly wrong with a president, any president, choosing to ignore a law.

    Even worse is this: if Obama had been strongly against it then I would understand that it could be seen as a “principled” stand. It would still be wrong; but I could understand that. 

    BUT, it is NOT a principled stand with Obama. I feel that it is an attempt to deflect away from his shortcomings (I know, I know, there are many), especially his totally screwing up the American economy.  Great, I cannot find work; But I can now get married.  Pffft!

    This is just another part of his “bread and circuses” routine.

  2. says

    David Limbaugh says:  “He gave no hint that he would take it upon himself to issue a presidential edict, without a congressional bill placed before him, forbidding the executive branch from enforcing the law. But that is precisely what he did this week.”

    I think he overlooks a very material point, which is that the Obama administration is going to continue to enforce the law:

    “Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.”

    That’s from Attorney General Holder’s letter to Speaker Boehner.

    What they’ve decided to do is to stop arguing in court that the law has to be evaluated under a lenient “rational basis” standard; they’ve concluded it must be evaluated under intermediate scrutiny, which they do not expect it would survive.  For more information refer to my comment yesterday to the “Did Obama Pull a Harry Truman” post.

  3. jj says

    The president doesn’t get to pick and choose which sections of a law he likes, and decide to enforce them and not the rest.  His job – and that of the justice department – is to enforce the law - not section 3, while ignoring section 2.  That is not a call it’s within the purview of a president to make.  It is not his job.  he does not have the authority to make such a decision.
     
    It seems normal for this little clown and his henchmen, though, doesn’t it?  The Administration is currently in violation of a Louisiana federal judge’s order. and said judge has found them in contempt of court.  I don’t remember an administration actually being in contempt of court, but a – shall we say – somewhat “imaginative” approach to the law seems to be becoming a hallmark of this bunch.
     
    Imagine what we’d all be compelled to listen to if President Palin decided she didn’t like the EPA, so the hell with it, it’s no longer going to be enforced.  (Or any section thereof is no longer going to be enforced.)  The western world would be terminally deafened by liberal screaming.
     
     

  4. says

    jj, Section 2 is being enforced as well — the entire law is.  Section 3 was the only one about which they raised any concerns as to constitutionality; that’s why the discussion centered on that.  There was never any suggestion that any other section of DOMA would not be enforced (and how they would “enforce” Section 2 I really can’t say — it’s about an exception to full faith and credit and allows states to refuse to recognize marriages from other states).

  5. Mike Devx says

    It’s the Imperial Presidency, for sure. But it’s the Imperial Congress as well. It’s the Empire, in Washington, D.C., of our elites, and they are utterly and completely out of control.
     
    These paragraphs from the Detroit News (via Instapundit) say it all about their breathtaking arrogance toward lording it over we peons.  Nothing matters but what they WANT, and for what they want, they will do ANYTHING to take it.  Our Lords and Ladies, our MAjesties, our Governing Elite, living and ruling to benefit only themselves.  Rule of Law: abandoned.  This is rule by Man, by the Kings and the Queens, our loving Elite, for their own Majestic Prerogatives.
     

    It’s part of a disturbing trend by Democrats to embrace a by-any-means-necessary approach to governing. We saw it during passage of Obamacare, when the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate blew up the rules to block a filibuster. In Massachusetts, Democrats used after-the-fact law changes in a failed attempt to keep a Republican from succeeding Ted Kennedy.
    Obama trashed bankruptcy law to move the United Auto Workers ahead of General Motors’ and Chrysler’s secured creditors. And his regulatory agencies are bypassing Congress to enact policies he knows the elected representatives would never approve.
     

Leave a Reply