So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" . . .

[Harshaw]

"of a democratically-elected Congress" to be unconstitutional?

Letter from Holder to Boehner re: DOMA.

Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

Dear Mr. Speaker:

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, [SUP]i [/SUP]as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.

And thus the Administration refused to defend DOMA in court any longer.

It passed 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House, and was signed by the President. Not THIS President, but the President.

So, this is apparently OK. The Supreme Court? Not so much.

 

[Your Star]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Both sides play this game.

If I had a nickle for every time someone said that any court ruling in favor of LGBT rights were usurping the will of the people, and were in the wrong because of that I could retire. And I'm only 21.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

It's not about the specific law.

 

[Your Star]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

It's not about the specific law.

Neither was my point.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

On the topic, Obama is just a bald faced lying assclown. His law passed by what-7 votes in Congress? His petulance about his crown jewel of a failed administration is hilarious

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Neither was my point.

If your point is about every side having a share in hypocrisy, sure.

But the President saying what he said ticks it up a notch, especially given this little bit of his own history.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

On the topic, Obama is just a bald faced lying assclown. His law passed by what-7 votes in Congress? His petulance about his crown jewel of a failed administration is hilarious

It was more of a Facebook post than any kind of intelligent statement on the topic.

 

[Your Star]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

If your point is about every side having a share in hypocrisy, sure.

But the President saying what he said ticks it up a notch, especially given this little bit of his own history.

Yes it was.

And no it doesn't.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Yes it was.

And no it doesn't.

Given that he represents and entire branch of government, it does. Politicians can say whatever they want. On constitutional issues, Presidents matter quite a bit more.

 

[Your Star]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Given that he represents and entire branch of government, it does. Politicians can say whatever they want. On constitutional issues, Presidents matter quite a bit more.

Not really.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

We've all heard this argument before, its judicial activism when the courts don't rule how I want. Everyone does it, no one respects the courts on the surface because they are in many ways removed from the normal political process, the highest levels don't run for office so they don't need to worry about pandering to voters, and their terms are for life so they quickly fade into darkness after their nomination process. Then they sit back and silently, no cameras allowed in the courtroom and seldom are microphones allowed, judge the laws and actions of the American people and government.

Personally I view the courts, especially the SCOTUS, as the least corrupted part of government because of these facts.

But ya back on topic, everyone says the courts strike down laws because of personal or political agreement as opposed to their view of its Constitutionality whenever its a law they favor, the President not excluded.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

This is a bit different from saying one thing in one situation and another later.

This is the President actually having done exactly what he said the Court shouldn't do.

Except it's within the Court's purview to do it; it's not up to the President to decide which laws to enforce or not.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

This is a bit different from saying one thing in one situation and another later.

This is the President actually having done exactly what he said the Court shouldn't do.

Except it's within the Court's purview to do it; it's not up to the President to decide which laws to enforce or not.

Ah but the Obama administration did enforce DOMA. You're facts are a little off here

Firstly the Obama administration only said it wouldn't defend in court Section 3 of DOMA, not the entire law. Section 3 reads as follows for reference:

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Secondly, defense in court differs from enforcement. Being a Federal Law which does not remove the right of the states to issue same-sex marriages the DOMA only bars those citizens directly under federal jurisdiction from being wed in a gay marriage. For example the US military is one such a group where the UCMJ(Uniformed Code of Military Justice) is federal law and members of the military, regardless of their home state laws, must follow Federal guidelines. This is why a service member from a state which allowed for gay marriage could be married in his state, but it wouldn't be recognized under Federal Law and therefore he would gain no benefits from that marriage tax or otherwise. Now before the repeal of DADT, which banned openly gay service members, the US military was still enforcing DADT under DOMA even though the Obama administration had said it would not defend it in court.

Here's the actual text the Attorney General sent to the Speaker of the House last year:
Attorney General declares DOMA unconstitutional – The 1600 Report - CNN.com Blogs

In it he provides justification for this move which you may or may not, I assume not, agree with but I think what can be agreed upon is that this movie by the President and DOJ is without precedent although it is rare. Here's part of his letter:

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. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.



As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a “reasonable” one. “[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity,” and thus there are “a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute.” Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute “in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,” as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001).

That first part in bold is why if a service member now legally enters a gay marriage, his/her husband/wife will get none of the benefits a traditionally married couple will. Because his/her benefits come from the Federal government, being a member of US military, and because the federal government does not recognize his marriage he is still lawfully unmarried as far as they are concerned.

So basically, what you are saying is the same thing is actually two different things. Do you understand?

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Ah but the Obama administration did enforce DOMA. You're facts are a little off here

No, you're just being overly pedantic about it.

Firstly the Obama administration only said it wouldn't defend in court Section 3 of DOMA, not the entire law. Section 3 reads as follows for reference:

So what?

Secondly, defense in court differs from enforcement.

:roll: Defending it in court is part of "enforcement," and it's sure as shootin' part of the "faithful execution" of the law as required in Article II.

Being a Federal Law which does not remove the right of the states to issue same-sex marriages the DOMA only bars those citizens directly under federal jurisdiction from being wed in a gay marriage. For example the US military is one such a group where the UCMJ(Uniformed Code of Military Justice) is federal law and members of the military, regardless of their home state laws, must follow Federal guidelines. This is why a service member from a state which allowed for gay marriage could be married in his state, but it wouldn't be recognized under Federal Law and therefore he would gain no benefits from that marriage tax or otherwise. Now before the repeal of DADT, which banned openly gay service members, the US military was still enforcing DADT under DOMA even though the Obama administration had said it would not defend it in court.

Here's the actual text the Attorney General sent to the Speaker of the House last year:
Attorney General declares DOMA unconstitutional – The 1600 Report - CNN.com Blogs

In it he provides justification for this move which you may or may not, I assume not, agree with but I think what can be agreed upon is that this movie by the President and DOJ is without precedent although it is rare. Here's part of his letter:



That first part in bold is why if a service member now legally enters a gay marriage, his/her husband/wife will get none of the benefits a traditionally married couple will. Because his/her benefits come from the Federal government, being a member of US military, and because the federal government does not recognize his marriage he is still lawfully unmarried as far as they are concerned.

The substance of the law is irrelevant. And I have no idea why you thought you needed to link to a CNN blog for the "actual memo" when I linked to it at the Justice Dept. website in the OP.

Plus, "justification" for it is irrelevant; do you think the Supreme Court doesn't "justify" its findings of unconstitutionality, or won't in this case?

So basically, what you are saying is the same thing is actually two different things. Do you understand?

No. It's about "finding" (as though the President can just decide to do this) a law passed by an actual strong majority of congress unconstitutional, while telling the Supreme Court that they shouldn't. Yet, lo and behold, here's his own Administration doing exactly that.

You've been in serious Obama CYA mode over this entire thing. This flurry of words is all very well, but it's just a distraction.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Mrs Obama needs to crush Mr Obama's medicine up in a spoon and mix it with a bit of orange juice so he'll take it like a good little boy.

Someone needs to slip him the text of the Constitution via Presidential Glass next time he's preaching from his pulpit.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

So what?

So what? So you said he wouldn't enforce the law, however its more accurate to say he wouldn't defend part of the law in court. Its only a question of accuracy....

:roll: Defending it in court is part of "enforcement," and it's sure as shootin' part of the "faithful execution" of the law as required in Article II.

Legal definition differs from dictionary definition and your personal definition, what you consider enforcement may not be what the law defines as enforcement. Its important to recognize the meaning of words within their context, for example literal and sarcastic meaning of the same word can widely vary just as the legal, dictionary, and common use meaning of the same word can.

The substance of the law is irrelevant. And I have no idea why you thought you needed to link to a CNN blog for the "actual memo" when I linked to it at the Justice Dept. website in the OP.

Plus, "justification" for it is irrelevant; do you think the Supreme Court doesn't "justify" its findings of unconstitutionality, or won't in this case?

Justification is the entire point of this argument, you believe its not justified. Therefore I assumed you'd be interested in knowing and understanding the other side's justification, of course you don't think their justification is satisfactory but there it is.

And of course the SCOTUS justifies their decisions thats why they write opinions, again you don't have to agree with it and I'm not saying I personally do but I thought you'd want to understand their justification. And see the fact that there is historical precedence for this move on the part of a President.

No. It's about "finding" (as though the President can just decide to do this) a law passed by an actual strong majority of congress unconstitutional, while telling the Supreme Court that they shouldn't. Yet, lo and behold, here's his own Administration doing exactly that.

You've been in serious Obama CYA mode over this entire thing. This flurry of words is all very well, but it's just a distraction.

You make an assumption that I'm here to defend Obama, I'm not. I'm here because I see someone who doesn't have all the facts or is ignoring the ones inconvenient to their argument. Again you say he is ignoring the law, but its not the entire law is only a section of it he instructed the DOJ not to defend in court. A very different situation if you took the time to understand it, however it doesn't play well into simple arguments and simple thoughts and therefore is ignored. I'm not fighting for Obama, I'm fighting for facts and truth and real understanding of issues.

Tell me this, if the law was not enforced, why does a service member married to someone of the same sex not get the same benefits as a service member married to someone of the opposite sex? If Obama did not enforce this law, DOMA, then that gay service member would get the same benefits as another married couple. Do you not understand this? A married gay service member does not get the same benefits as a straight married service member because of the DOMA they are considered legally single and not married. And that is enforced and continues to be enforced by the Obama administration. That is legal enforcement.

This isn't "distraction" is reality, I've shown you enforcement! Here it is being enforced, everyday where I work in the Army its being enforced. Don't call it a distraction when it clearly shows exactly what you deny is happening because you have insufficient understanding of the law to justify your opinions and statements.

Me? I don't have an opinion. I'm not fighting for or again DOMA here, or for or against Obama, I'm just trying to explain to you why you're not using the right language in your criticizes and its making your arguments factually incorrect.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

So what? So you said he wouldn't enforce the law, however its more accurate to say he wouldn't defend part of the law in court. Its only a question of accuracy....

Legal definition differs from dictionary definition and your personal definition, what you consider enforcement may not be what the law defines as enforcement. Its important to recognize the meaning of words within their context, for example literal and sarcastic meaning of the same word can widely vary just as the legal, dictionary, and common use meaning of the same word can.

It makes no difference. Either way, it's the President not faithfully executing the law because he declared it unconstitutional. That you'd stick to this very, very pedantic point speaks volumes.

Justification is the entire point of this argument, you believe its not justified.

No. Have you not read a single word I said?

The point is that he says the Supreme Court shouldn't find a law passed by a strong majority of Congress unconstitutional. Why? Because it was passed by a strong majority of Congress (even though it wasn't).

But he did exactly the same thing with a law which really was passed by a strong majority.

Justification is irrelevant. The point is, he did exactly what he said the Supreme Court shouldn't do.

And see the fact that there is historical precedence for this move on the part of a President.

So what? There's much, much, much, much more historical precedence for the Supreme Court doing it. Yet he says they shouldn't. While he did.

You make an assumption that I'm here to defend Obama, I'm not. I'm here because I see someone who doesn't have all the facts or is ignoring the ones inconvenient to their argument.

Sorry, Wiseone, but considering everything you're posting, you haven't followed my argument, at all. So, you don't really know what's "convenient to it" or not. I don't give a **** about DOMA in and of itself.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

It makes no difference. Either way, it's the President not faithfully executing the law because he declared it unconstitutional. That you'd stick to this very, very pedantic point speaks volumes.

No. Have you not read a single word I said?

The point is that he says the Supreme Court shouldn't find a law passed by a strong majority of Congress unconstitutional. Why? Because it was passed by a strong majority of Congress (even though it wasn't).

But he did exactly the same thing with a law which really was passed by a strong majority.

Justification is irrelevant. The point is, he did exactly what he said the Supreme Court shouldn't do.

So what? There's much, much, much, much more historical precedence for the Supreme Court doing it. Yet he says they shouldn't. While he did.

Sorry, Wiseone, but considering everything you're posting, you haven't followed my argument, at all. So, you don't really know what's "convenient to it" or not. I don't give a **** about DOMA in and of itself.

Alright I see what you're getting at. You're accusing the President of being a hypocrite? Because you're equating what the Supreme Court does or what the have the power to do, ie strike down laws, as to what Obama did regarding DOMA? Obviously thats not the same thing at all because DOMA is still around and still enforced.

And again you touch on the Constitutional phrase "fully execute" however that has a specific legal meaning which differs from your personal meaning, too many people read the Constitution and use their meanings for words as opposed to the legal meaning.

If you're going to argue that Obama, like literally every other politician argues to what is and isn't Constitutional than you're making a selective argument. If we are going to talk about how the SCOTUS overturning a law, passed by large majority or not, is unprecedented like Obama said than yes you're still right like you were in that other topic.

What I would love for you to understand is the difference between legal definition and your personal definition of a word, this all started as an argument about whether he's enforcing the law, DOMA in this case. You said he wasn't and I've shown you quite damn clearly that it is being enforced, he hasn't struck it down, the law still exists, etc etc.

Now if you're going to say he's a hypocrite for ignoring DOMA's large majority in passing, while trumpeting the majority his healthcare law got even though DOMA passed with larger majority. If you're going to say thats being hypocritical and bias, I will totally 100% agree.

But what I disagree on, and what you cannot deny is that even though Obama issued a declaration to not defend this law in court it is still being enforced. That's a fact.

 

[StillBallin75]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Defending a particular law is explicitly NOT part of enforcement. Those are two completely separate issues. That's my $0.02 on this discussion.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Alright I see what you're getting at . . .


. . . Now if you're going to say he's a hypocrite for ignoring DOMA's large majority in passing, while trumpeting the majority his healthcare law got even though DOMA passed with larger majority. If you're going to say thats being hypocritical and bias, I will totally 100% agree.

Why on Earth did it take you this long to get there?

 

[obvious Child]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Both sides play this game.

If I had a nickle for every time someone said that any court ruling in favor of LGBT rights were usurping the will of the people, and were in the wrong because of that I could retire. And I'm only 21.

This is actually refreshing. The blatant, massive flaming lies in the past year have largely been Republican in origin. About time the Dems started saying ridiculous ones.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

Why on Earth did it take you this long to get there?

You don't formulate your arguments well in my opinion, you should write more than just one or two sentences.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

"of a democratically-elected Congress" to be unconstitutional?

Letter from Holder to Boehner re: DOMA.

Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

Dear Mr. Speaker:

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, i as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.​

And thus the Administration refused to defend DOMA in court any longer.

It passed 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House, and was signed by the President. Not THIS President, but the President.

So, this is apparently OK. The Supreme Court? Not so much.

So our President—the great Constitutional scholar that he is—cites the “equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment”, does he?

Let's have a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

Now where is that “equal protection component”? I don't see it here.

Of course, if he actually were to read and understand the Fifth Amendment, he'd have to realize that it totally shoots down a bunch of his policy positions that are based on taking private property without proper due process of law, for public use, without justly compensating those from whom it is taken.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

You don't formulate your arguments well in my opinion, you should write more than just one or two sentences.

No, actually, you just assume about a thousand things which aren't in my words.

 

[Paschendale]

Re: So what happens when the PRESIDENT declares a law passed by a "strong majority" .

So our President—the great Constitutional scholar that he is—cites the “equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment”, does he?

Let's have a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

Now where is that “equal protection component”? I don't see it here.

Of course, if he actually were to read and understand the Fifth Amendment, he'd have to realize that it totally shoots down a bunch of his policy positions that are based on taking private property without proper due process of law, for public use, without justly compensating those from whom it is taken.

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)

Looks like the constitutional scholar knows a lot more about the fifth amendment than you do.