Posted on 02/25/2011 1:36:45 PM PST by Red Badger
In the initial news coverage, I believe someone said that no one had ever even challenged DOMA in court. You can’t claim a law that’s passed both houses and been signed by the President is unconstitutional until its run the judicial course. They did that with the line item veto. Supremes declared it unconstitutional. But no one has even tested DOMA.
You could have fooled me. He apparently is no less powerful than Hugo Chavez.
I will believe otherwise when a single member of the GOP leadership starts holding hearings and issues subpoenas. He currently is in contempt of Two Federal Court Orders.
I guess that would make you correct because the president weilds absolute power and no other branch gives a sh#t.
(If my Photoshop skills were at a MUCH higher level, I’d give it a shot.)
IT’S ABOUT TIME IMPEACHMENT FOR THE OBOZO WAS MENTIONED. Now if only the congress has the guts to abide by their oath of office maybe articles of impeachment will soon be filed.
Great post and I agree!!
Ooohh! arent we a bit touchy
I thin you will be disappointed, because if they were going to do anything on Obamacare they would have done it already. There is no point in letting the administration put all the supporting laws into place if they had any intention of declaring it unconstitutional, which they could do tomorrow if they chose.
I completely agree. Congress works for us though, so by 'political will' that's something we might have to instill in them. It will likely take some coordinated letter writing and phone calls, but we can successfully remind Congress outside of elections what our will is.
What laws will liberal elite totalitarians suspend next?
There have been no less than five constitutional challenges to DOMA (that I know of). Some have been fully litigated, and others are currently been litigated.
Most recently, a judge in MA ruled that one of the provisions of DOMA (Sec. III, I believe), was unconstitutional in two separate cases that were effectively combined into one, Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services and Gill v. MA. That was appealed (at least initially by Holder's DoJ), and a stay was granted by the trial judge pending appeal in the 1st Circuit. I don't believe that case has been argued yet in the 1st, and if it hasn't, Holder's letter suggests strongly that it will have to be argued by someone other than the DoJ.
So, you can see the writing on the wall. Holder & Obama actually got the district court opinion they wanted by losing the case. Then, they made a cursory appeal to avoid the subject before the mid-term elections. Now that the mid-terms have passed, and we're in the middle of a very busy news cycle, they bury this story about them deciding to stop defending the law. Is it constitional or legal for them to stop defending it? Sure. Is it ethical to do it in the middle of their term, while they campiagned on one postion and argued in court for that same position for the better part of two years? No.
What's the practical legal effect of not defending it? If they don't defend the statute, it (those two Boston district court cases) (will eventually set a binding precedent in the 1st Circuit, and persuasive precedent in the rest of the country, at least until such a time that the Supreme Court hears and decides a similar case.
The question is, are we going to allow the line to stand? Afraid so.
When Nixon thought he was above the law, the MSM went after him. When Obaba tells us he's above the law, the MSM sits on their hands. When will we know when Obama's gone 'too far'? When there are midnight knocks and no-warrant arrests of political opponents?
You: No, it's not.
Yes it is. To make this easy to understand. A burgler commits a breaking and entering, but some crazy lib prosecutor has deemed that it is within his Constitutional rights for the burglar to commit the B&E as 'social justice,' and therefore, will not prosecute the case against the burglar.
The Cops caught the burglar red handed in the act of committing the crime and consequently booked the burglar for the crime. However, as mentioned above, the local prosecutor believed the burglar was seeking 'social justice' and wanted some 'spreading of the wealth' so the local DA refuses to prosecute. The local prosecutor clearly failed to enforce the law.
"Dumb lawyers are a dime a dozen"
Lawyers are still dumb, especially lib ones.
Lawyers, dumb or not, don't operate as government legal advocates without direction. In this instance, Presidents are the the ones giving that direction. I cited for you (and others) three separate cases where Republican presidents directed their AG to not defend existing statutes from constitutional challenges.
However dumb you believe attorneys to be, in those three cases they were doing EXACTLY what Ronald Reagan directed them to do - NOT defend the law.
I figured you would use this argument. Whether there is a criminal aspect to this law or not is irrelevant, Obama is willingly refusing to uphold the law as he said he won't defend it in court.
Nixon’s crimes pale next Obama’s.
Right, then I guess it was equally irrelevant when Ronald Reagan ordered the same thing. I suppose you were campaigning for his impeachment too, right?
I don’t know the details about what laws the Reagan admin. chose to ignore, but I addressed ‘prosecutorial discretion’ in post 118. Prosecutorial discretion may come with a political cost if it is done badly or goes against social norms. Reagan, as we know had a successful presidency. The Obama administration is an utter failure.
Obama has set a pattern of not enforcing laws or has expressed a willingness to ignore court rulings he does not like. From court rulings on ObamaCare, to border enforcement, to contempt of court about Mexico Gulf drilling.
It all adds up to continual government malfeasance that can be used as justification for impeachable offenses.
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.