This is a discussion on Obama Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by fuhr52 What does it matter. The left will find what ever interpetation they need to fit there ...
"The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992
"You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan
What I'm getting ready to say is a great example of HOW IT WORKS and many need to get this.
I hate gay and lesbian acts, I think they are one of the most unnatural blights on the face of the planet and I wish they didn't exist. No one bother to argue with me, my ideology is not going to change on this.
However, I love the Constitution and I am a firm believer and follower in it's words. By the doctrine it hands down, none of us can slight them or punish them, it is not our right to do so and we are required by the Constitution to leave them alone and let them pursue happiness just like the rest of us.
My point is, notwithstanding how strongly I feel about something, if it defies the Constitution, despite my right to verbally express it, it is null and void. When the Constitution backs what I like, yay for me. When it doesn't, I have to get over it.
The country would be better off if everyone were to commit to THAT ideology.
It's kinda like how everyone gets out of the way of an ambulance, we submit to it's authority because we would like others to do the same for us if we were in the same situation.
One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.
I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!
From one of my favourite legal blogs... okay, it's the only legal blog I read.
Superheroes and Contempt | Law and the Multiverse
So, even if Obama chose to not only stop defending DOMA against legal challenges before the courts, but also stopped all expenditures to officers charged with its enforcement and/or ordered them to end all enforcement actions related to DOMA, there's nothing that Congress or the courts could do to compel him otherwise.Neither Congress nor the courts may direct the President or his agents to bring charges or maintain a case against anyone, nor can they require that charges be dropped. The ability to choose which cases to prosecute and which not to remains entirely at the discretion of the President. Granted, the President has sworn an oath to uphold the law, but even staying within the bounds of good-faith attempts to do so, there can be wild differences in emphasis. The Department of Justice has a finite budget, but there is an effectively infinite number of potential cases to pursue. An obvious criterion observed by almost all Attorneys General is to only pursue cases where thereís a reasonable chance of winning. Hard to argue with that one. But if, for example, President Obama decided that he wasnít going to prosecute possession of narcotics chargesÖ there isnít a lot anyone could do about it. I mean, Congress could defund the entire Department of Justice in retaliation, but thatís a rather ham-fisted approach. Other political compromises are obviously on the table, but when it comes to actually forcing the President to do something, thatís about all there is.
When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
Don't retreat. Just reload.