Comment_Guy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 30
- Location
- Greensboro, NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It's not just this administration, dude. There are tons of unconstitutional laws that have been passed by administrations both on the left and right.
As one person described it, dems and repubs right now are two sides of the same coin.
The Obama Administration has shown disdain for many traditional institutions of this country, and none so much as the legislative branch and the laws that it has passed.
He acts as an imperial leader, using executive orders to circumvent the people’s legislature, establishing a vast administrative state be executive decree.
On the other side of it, Obama has selectively ignored laws the legislature HAS passed. Those are the focus of this text. In this thread, I do not argue for or against any of these laws, merely the fact that they ARE laws that have been brushed aside by our President.
Three examples:
1. DOMA – The Defense of Marriage Act, Obama does not agree with its position SO last year had the Holder Justice Department declare that it would not be enforcing DOMA. DOMA was passed by the people’s congress and signed into law by the impeached pervert B.J. (Bill Jefferson) Clinton, who was found guilty of contempt of court by Federal District Court Judge Susan Weber Wright.
2. Arizona Immigration Law – you may not agree with the law itself… fine, however the fact remains that the state law that the Holder Justice Department is attacking through a federal action, essentially compels the enforcement of already existing federal law. It mirrors federal law, which Obama and Holder have made crystal clear will NEVER be enforced by them. Like I said, I am not arguing the merits of the law itself; I am merely making the point of Obama is selectively disregarding duly passed law.
3. Unlawful Appropriation of Obamacare funds to cover this year’s (and only this year’s) enormous shortfall in Medicare Advantage - There is not a more independent organization within the federal government than the GAO. The GAO (General Accounting Office), has essentially directed the executive branch to stop using the 8.3 billion dollars in a way that is unauthorized by Obama's own law. It is being used essentially as a slush-fund. Kathleen Sebelius appeared before a House Committee last week and basically said, no, we will not stop using that money.
To summarize, if a President does not agree with a law, he or she should use his or her position to make a reasoned argument to the electorate, which may or may not result in the compelling of its represented officials to make common-sense changes to our country’s laws. Let the people's voices be heard through their elected officials.
But not this administration… Obama acts as an imperial bully, by bypassing the legislative branch through executive fiat, and completely ignoring laws passed by that legislature. Truly, the Constitution is an impediment to this man and his apparatchiks.
You need to get your facts right. Just off the top of my head without researching:
1) DOMA is still enforced and no one has said they would not enforce it. Not defending it in court is not even remotely the same as not enforcing it, and it is legal for the president to do and has been done many times in the past.
2) The administration is working within the law to stop another law they think is wrong. That is not acting in an unlawful manner. Nor has Obama and Holder said they would not enforce current immigration laws. In fact they have done so and successfully.
Don't make **** up and maybe people will take your claims a little more seriously.
You need to get your facts right. Just off the top of my head without researching:
1) DOMA is still enforced and no one has said they would not enforce it. Not defending it in court is not even remotely the same as not enforcing it, and it is legal for the president to do and has been done many times in the past.
2) The administration is working within the law to stop another law they think is wrong. That is not acting in an unlawful manner. Nor has Obama and Holder said they would not enforce current immigration laws. In fact they have done so and successfully.
Don't make **** up and maybe people will take your claims a little more seriously.
You need to get your facts right. Just off the top of my head without researching:
1) DOMA is still enforced and no one has said they would not enforce it. Not defending it in court is not even remotely the same as not enforcing it, and it is legal for the president to do and has been done many times in the past.
2) The administration is working within the law to stop another law they think is wrong. That is not acting in an unlawful manner. Nor has Obama and Holder said they would not enforce current immigration laws. In fact they have done so and successfully.
Don't make **** up and maybe people will take your claims a little more seriously.
Does an example of DOMA being enforced since February 2011 exist? I can't say that it does. If I am wrong, give an example and I will give you credit.
You then said, "and it is legal for the president to do it and has been done many times in the past." What is your legal basis for that statement? That is... it is legally based on what?
However you claim it has happened "many" times in the past, ok then name a few times if you can.
I am not joking, if you can teach me something here, then I'll give you credit for it. However please be specific.
Regarding the Arizona law... it is obectifiable fact that Obama is opposed to Arizona's State Immigration Law and that Holder is attacking it. That state law effectively mirrors EXISTING federal law, which Obama's DOJ has not and will not enforce. That is a basic point that you struggle with, Redress.
We will remain a party to the case and continue to represent the defendants and the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. As with Section 3 of DOMA, the Executive Branch will continue to enforce 38 U.S.C. § 101(3) and 38 U.S.C. § 101(31), consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals those provisions or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against their constitutionality
DOMA is unconstitutional anyway. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage.
Oddly, while this is the strongest argument against DOMA's constutitionality, it is not the reason Obama is not defneding DOMA.
Does an example of DOMA being enforced since February 2011 exist? I can't say that it does. If I am wrong, give an example and I will give you credit.
You then said, "and it is legal for the president to do it and has been done many times in the past." What is your legal basis for that statement? That is... it is legally based on what?
However you claim it has happened "many" times in the past, ok then name a few times if you can.
I am not joking, if you can teach me something here, then I'll give you credit for it. However please be specific.
Regarding the Arizona law... it is obectifiable fact that Obama is opposed to Arizona's State Immigration Law and that Holder is attacking it. That state law effectively mirrors EXISTING federal law, which Obama's DOJ has not and will not enforce. That is a basic point that you struggle with, Redress.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
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.
The former sailor, Carmen Cardona of Norwich, married her partner in Connecticut last year. But when she applied for an increase in her monthly disability compensation because she was newly married, the Department of Veterans Affairs regional office in Hartford rejected her application, citing a federal statute that defines a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex.”
The Obama Administration has shown disdain for many traditional institutions of this country, and none so much as the legislative branch and the laws that it has passed.
He acts as an imperial leader, using executive orders to circumvent the people’s legislature, establishing a vast administrative state be executive decree.
On the other side of it, Obama has selectively ignored laws the legislature HAS passed. Those are the focus of this text. In this thread, I do not argue for or against any of these laws, merely the fact that they ARE laws that have been brushed aside by our President.
Three examples:
1. DOMA – The Defense of Marriage Act, Obama does not agree with its position SO last year had the Holder Justice Department declare that it would not be enforcing DOMA. DOMA was passed by the people’s congress and signed into law by the impeached pervert B.J. (Bill Jefferson) Clinton, who was found guilty of contempt of court by Federal District Court Judge Susan Weber Wright.
2. Arizona Immigration Law – you may not agree with the law itself… fine, however the fact remains that the state law that the Holder Justice Department is attacking through a federal action, essentially compels the enforcement of already existing federal law. It mirrors federal law, which Obama and Holder have made crystal clear will NEVER be enforced by them. Like I said, I am not arguing the merits of the law itself; I am merely making the point of Obama is selectively disregarding duly passed law.
3. Unlawful Appropriation of Obamacare funds to cover this year’s (and only this year’s) enormous shortfall in Medicare Advantage - There is not a more independent organization within the federal government than the GAO. The GAO (General Accounting Office), has essentially directed the executive branch to stop using the 8.3 billion dollars in a way that is unauthorized by Obama's own law. It is being used essentially as a slush-fund. Kathleen Sebelius appeared before a House Committee last week and basically said, no, we will not stop using that money.
To summarize, if a President does not agree with a law, he or she should use his or her position to make a reasoned argument to the electorate, which may or may not result in the compelling of its represented officials to make common-sense changes to our country’s laws. Let the people's voices be heard through their elected officials.
But not this administration… Obama acts as an imperial bully, by bypassing the legislative branch through executive fiat, and completely ignoring laws passed by that legislature. Truly, the Constitution is an impediment to this man and his apparatchiks.
The design of the demonstration precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness in achieving CMS’s stated research goal—to test whether a scaled bonus structure leads to larger and faster annual quality improvement compared with what would have occurred under PPACA.
>snip<
Recommendation:
The Secretary of HHS should cancel the MA Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration and allow the MA quality bonus payment system established by PPACA to take effect. If, at a future date, the Secretary finds that this system does not adequately promote quality improvement, HHS should determine ways to modify the system, which could include conducting an appropriately designed demonstration.
To me, DOMA clearly violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
It shouldn't be defended in court by the government, because there are no constitutional grounds to defend it on!
The fact that states still do not have to recognioze SSM couples married in other states and they still do not get federal benefits means that DOMA is still enforced. Here is an example of enforcing DOMA: http://www.justice.gov/ag/boehner02-17-12.pdf . While Holder states that section 3 of the law is unconstitutional he also states:
Cases where presidents declined to defend laws in court that they believed unconstitutional:
United States v. Lovett 328 U.S. 303 (1946)
INS v. Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
Morrison v. Olson 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
Metro Broadcasting, Inc v. FCC (1990)
Simkins v. Moses H Cohen Memorial Hosp. 323 F.2d 929 (4th Cir, 1963)
Garrett v. Alexander 477 F. Supp 1035 (D., D.C, 1979)
League of Women Voters of Calif. v. FCC 489 F. Supp. 517 (C.D, Cal 1980)
Turner Broadcasting Svcs v. FCC Civ No 92-2247 (DDC)
ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
Bob Jones University v. United States461 U.S. 574 (1982)
Is that really your point, that you think I am saying that this is the first time a president has ever tried to get around the legislature? Try to be a little more discerning. Let's keep this interesting.
I am not beholden to Bush or any other politician just because he or she has an "R" by his or her name.
If you want to call out some Republican presidents for similar activity then let it rip! You offer little sayings...the two sides of the coin or whatever it was... back up your platitudes with real examples, if you are able.
Obama has been especially egregious in his disregard for duly passed law that he does not agree with, and I called him out for it.
You seemed to be hanging on to the "enforce" vs. "defense" distinction... So now you will admit that a government's unwillingness to defend signifies tacit nonenforcement? It is almost silly to have to say it, because it is so obvious, however there is a fair amount of opinion within gay intellegensia (for some reason) that seeks to make the distinction so significant.
Enforce a law and defend a law are two entirely different things. They are not related. DOMA is the law and is being enforced. You played this all wrong. When your argument got blown up in your face, you should have admitted you where wrong. That saves a little face.
And what in the **** is the "gay intellegensia"? That has to be the most ****ing stupid thing I have heard...
No, my point is that every president has done this...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?