Obama Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

[G50AE]

This is not the act of the Imperial Obama. He's not declaring that the law is in fact unconstitutional. He'd declaring that he believes it to be unconstitutional. He's also not saying that DOMA will no longer be enforced. It will. What will no longer happen is the DoJ defending the unconstitutional DOMA against legal challenges, in effect, throwing in the towel on it and just waiting until someone files the lawsuit that will result in the courts giving it the 10 count and striking it down for lack of a response from the executive branch.

As it should be.

I see someone here actually gets it. If this gets to the court it will most likely be a 7-2 decision to throw out the law on the grounds that congress overstepped its power to regulate interstate commerce. Majority oppinion, Thomas, Scalia, Kenedy, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Breyer. Dissenting oppinion, Roberts and Alito. Although Kenedy might dissent as well, and Roberts might concur with the majority.

Congress is delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce, mariage is not in and of itself an act of interstate commerce and thus congress has no power to regulate it.

[G50AE]

I think the executive branch should defend enacted laws within the bounds of ethics. Let the courts decide if it is unconstitutional.

I do not agree, the executive branch should stay out of judicial matters, that's what we have the courts for. Let the merits of the law, or lack there of, stand for themselves. The courts can do their job just fine without the executive branch overstepping its contitutional powers.

[weekendskp]

I see someone here actually gets it. If this gets to the court it will most likely be a 7-2 decision to throw out the law on the grounds that congress overstepped its power to regulate interstate commerce. Majority oppinion, Thomas, Scalia, Kenedy, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Breyer. Dissenting oppinion, Roberts and Alito. Although Kenedy might dissent as well, and Roberts might concur with the majority.

Congress is delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce, mariage is not in and of itself an act of interstate commerce and thus congress has no power to regulate it.

I have two points that I'd like to add. One, marriage should not be federally legislated for obvious constitutional reasons. Mike Hucksterbee doesn't get it! Please don't vote for that religious nut. Watch this video Defense of Marriage Act - Mike Huckabee - Judge Napolitano | Mediaite
And two, there is a large body of scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality is something a person is born with. If it wasn't a biological event, then why do other species in the animal kingdom also have same gender preferences? Researchers have identified a portion of the brain during fetal development that directs the attraction to same gender. You can read the whole article yourself, if your mind isn't already too closed to the idea The Science Of Sexual Orientation - 60 Minutes - CBS News, but here is a quote that demonstrates my belief.

Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture — namely overbearing mothers and distant fathers — but that theory has been disproved. Today, scientists are looking at genes, environment, brain structure and hormones. There is one area of consensus: that homosexuality involves more than just sexual behavior; it’s physiological.

[G50AE]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[fuhr52]

The bigger issue is one branch of government should not step on the toes of another branch. If we allow this to happen then what good is the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution would never condone same sex marriage or abortion on demand. It's progressive liberals that have pushed this. But then again we have a Democrat in the White House and only Democrats care and know what is best for the citizens. The law be damned. I need a hug.

[HootmonSccy]

To continue the point of separation of powers argument..
I heard a conservative and liberal debating this..
The conservative stated - Would you still be in support of this action if the president told the DOJ to no longer defend the 1964 Civil Rights act?
The Liberal said - He would NEVER do that... That is a "GOOD" law...

So The Executive Branch now gets to determine which are GOOD laws and BAD laws??

The President is supposed to Support and defend the Constitution of the US and enforce ALL laws as the executive branch...

Obama did NOT just state his opinion, that would have been fine.. But when he tells the DOJ NOT to defend the law, then he has overstepped his bounds..

IF he doesn't like the law, then he knows PLENTY of Congress people to go to to re-write the law.. He knows Plenty of Federal Judges that he can go to and ask to bring up the law on a Challenge with the plenty of cases that are already out there..

The DOMA law is already being challenged in the courts.. While the law is already in process of being challenged is NOT the time for him to order the DOJ to NOT defend the law.. The Executive Branch Supports and executes ALL laws..

It is also no accident that Obama took this on while Congress was on recess and knows that Congress will be busy Monday and Tuesday with the budget bills to keep the country running, IF they don't the Federal Gov't will shut down because the $$$ will have run out..

I'd say Politics as usual, but this act is WAY beyond usual and in itself Unconstitutional!!.

AND before ANYONE asks.. I'd be just as upset no matter what the law being stated..

[fuhr52]

To continue the point of separation of powers argument..
I heard a conservative and liberal debating this..
The conservative stated - Would you still be in support of this action if the president told the DOJ to no longer defend the 1964 Civil Rights act?
The Liberal said - He would NEVER do that... That is a "GOOD" law...

So The Executive Branch now gets to determine which are GOOD laws and BAD laws??

The President is supposed to Support and defend the Constitution of the US and enforce ALL laws as the executive branch...

Obama did NOT just state his opinion, that would have been fine.. But when he tells the DOJ NOT to defend the law, then he has overstepped his bounds..

IF he doesn't like the law, then he knows PLENTY of Congress people to go to to re-write the law.. He knows Plenty of Federal Judges that he can go to and ask to bring up the law on a Challenge with the plenty of cases that are already out there..

The DOMA law is already being challenged in the courts.. While the law is already in process of being challenged is NOT the time for him to order the DOJ to NOT defend the law.. The Executive Branch Supports and executes ALL laws..

It is also no accident that Obama took this on while Congress was on recess and knows that Congress will be busy Monday and Tuesday with the budget bills to keep the country running, IF they don't the Federal Gov't will shut down because the $$$ will have run out..

I'd say Politics as usual, but this act is WAY beyond usual and in itself Unconstitutional!!.

AND before ANYONE asks.. I'd be just as upset no matter what the law being stated..

Thankyou, you said it better than I did.

[G50AE]

The bigger issue is one branch of government should not step on the toes of another branch.

And that is what Obama is doing by stating that he will not attempt to defend this law. This is an issue of seperation of powers between the three branches of government and he is correctly stating that he will not unduely influence the judicial branch. Let the courts decide the matter.

The framers of the Constitution would never condone same sex marriage or abortion...

Please provide ANY information to indicate this. If that is the case then why doesn't article 1 section 8 of the constitution contain this clause,

"To regulate acts of sexual intercourse, reproduction, and marriage;"

I don't see that clause in the constitution.

[fuhr52]

And that is what Obama is doing by stating that he will not attempt to defend this law. This is an issue of seperation of powers between the three branches of government and he is correctly stating that he will not unduely influence the judicial branch. Let the courts decide the matter.



Please provide ANY information to indicate this. If that is the case then why doesn't article 1 section 8 of the constitution contain this clause,

"To regulate acts of sexual intercourse, reproduction, and marriage;"

I don't see that clause in the constitution.

Had they been influenced by the liberal progressives of today you might have seen it in there. If they would have had any idea this would be a future issue, I believe it would be in there. That was a much different generation. It's just like celibrating religious holladays, If the framers of the Constitution didn't want the government invalved why did it take 200 years before it was an issue. It's progressive liberal anti religious groups that decided to interprit the Constitution to mean the government should be neutral. Just my opinion.

[G50AE]

Just my opinion.

So you are saying that you realy have nothing to back up your previous statement. I also see that you did not answer the question I previously posed, so I will state it again. Article 1 section 8 defines the powers of congress, these are referred to as congress's delegated powers. Where in that list of powers is congress given the power to regulate marriage, sexual intercourse, or reproduction?