Posted on 02/25/2011 2:53:22 AM PST by Scanian
Just what is it about the rule of law that President Obama doesn't get?
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it now believes the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines marriage as being a legal union between one man and one woman -- is unconstitutional, and said it will no longer defend the law in court.
So, just like that, Obama & Co. effectively declare null a law duly passed by Congress, signed by a previous president -- and presumptively binding on the government until either the courts or Congress declare otherwise.
It's a breathtaking act of arrogance, a precedent so fraught that it threatens one of the nation's bedrock founding principles: That America was to be ruled by law, not by individuals.
Presidents have found particular laws vexatious for as long as there have been presidents.
Still, when Franklin Roosevelt decided he didn't like legislation forced on him by Congress, he had sufficient respect for the law itself to attempt to pack the Supreme Court with friendly justices.
He lost.
He should have.
And it's not as if Obama, et al., don't understand the basic issue: Last October, the administration got it right in similar circumstances.
While disagreeing with the "Don't ask, don't tell" law blocking gays from serving openly in the military -- and despite objections from his left-wing base -- the president declared that he was obliged to follow and defend the law.
He added that he wanted DADT repealed by Congress rather than by the courts -- which is exactly what happened two months later.
But now this.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
THIS IS IMPEACHABLE OFFENCE!
It is not the first time. You Americans act on this or loose the grips of the Law on your country.
Add this to Wis. Senate Stall, to Drilling Moratorium, to Czars ruling and much more and you will see the result!
Stop funding these people
Stop listening to these people
Just go around them and fix the problems, ignoring the whinings of those on the left hellbent on destroying the country
If we don’t... There won’t be a country left (which is their goal, of course)
No problem...the next R President will refuse to prosecute Roe v. Wade, habeus corpus, and collective bargaining. Game Over.
Well, you seem pretty upset about it. Too bad I haven’t heard many in DC who feel that way.
In fact, NOBODY.
“...the next R President will refuse to prosecute Roe v. Wade, habeus corpus, and collective bargaining.”
How we wish.
bump
It’s a breathtaking act of arrogance, a precedent so fraught that it threatens one of the nation’s bedrock founding principles: That America was to be ruled by law, not by individuals
Arrogance???? LMAO George and Wheezy have it in abundance.
I have worked as a Spanish translator for years and have seen the rise and fall of many Latin American governments. One of the first things the new leftist dictators of these countries (Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc.) do is take on the court, particularly the constitutional court, and either dissolve it and throw its members in jail or simply ignore it. And they do exactly the same thing with validly passed laws: they just ignore them and say, "So, what are you gonna do about it, huh?"
I see this as a real challenge to the Supreme Court. Obama criticized them openly last year and now he is just shrugging and saying, ok, the law is what I say it is, and I don't need no stinkin' Constitution or court telling me what to do.
“So, what are you gonna do about it, huh?”
Isn’t that basically what Andrew Jackson was quoted as saying about John Marshall re. Indian relocation?
The “Father of the Democratic Party.” They have always been the scum that they still are.
----------------------------
Correctamundo !!!
We'll just have to sit in the back while he makes Rat policy by hijacking the democratic process.
I say we impeach this jackass.
It might fail as in BJ Clinton's second term impeachment but it's one thing America needs to set it straight again.
Yup. The Executive Branch can now just pick and choose what laws it wants to enforce and defend. No problem there [/s]
Mark
I disagree strongly with the President’s decision to not defend the law, but I’m afraid I agree with his basic position. The law is unconstitutional.
DOMA attempts to override, or provide exceptions for, a specific provision of the Constitution by means of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
While I very much agree with what DOMA is trying to accomplish, the proper way to do it is via a constitutional amendment. Which, unfortunately, will never happen.
It sets a horrible precedent. Do Congress and the President have equal authority to override provisions of the 1st or 2nd Amendments?
Obama is the law, and Obama is above the law, therefore there is no law.
Impeachment is becoming necessary. The big obstacle is the Senate.
The question is what is the point of impeachment.
If it’s to make a political point, then the GOP can impeach if they stick together in the House.
If it’s to remove Obama from office, ain’t gonna happen. If the GOP were to all vote for removal in the Senate, they’d still be close to 20 votes short. And as we all know, a good number of GOP senators would defect.
So you would in all likelihood wind up with a better than 2/3 majority against conviction. Which quite possibly would strengthen the President, not weaken him.
How does going thru this charade help the country? Why not spend the political capital impeachment would consume on defeating his reelection campaign?
True, but a little like saying, "Levitation is becoming necessary. The big obstacle is the Law of Gravity."
Now don’t go pickin on George Jefferson. He might have had an attitude, but he ran a real business. Employed people. Barry Dunham was a community organizer. What did he produce?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.