obama declares section 3 of the defense of marriage act unconstitutional

The president has the power to say he will not defend something that blatantly makes a group of the populace into second class citizens just as the courts can choose to not hear a case and the congress can do the normal crap they pretend to do to justify their jobs.

Obama has always stated that he does not believe in same sex marriage-however he actually has integrity to understand that his job means to ignore his personal beliefs for the betterment of all. That is what he is working on. Trying to improve things for all instead of just the corporations. Shocking I know.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Thank you. Thank you for stating that simply and intelligently.

I do follow politics and try to hear the "reality" amongst all the rhetoric - - - and hysteria perpetrated by the "carnival barker" media.

Originally posted by inkyminds

Originally posted by Quadrivium

This may be something many want but this is NOT the way to go about it. Presidents do not have this kind of power for a reason.
.

What would be the way to go about it? Presidents don't have WHAT kind of power? On what legal standard and/or precedent do you base that opinion?

The way to go about it is for him to stay in the executive branch.
He can not and should not deem any law unconstitutional.
He does not and should not have the power to instruct the DOJ in what they should or should not defend within any law. No matter how good his intentions.

the President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.

from the op's link.
This is for the judicial branch to handle. The President is not a king. He should not make decrees like this.

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by inkyminds

Originally posted by Quadrivium

This may be something many want but this is NOT the way to go about it. Presidents do not have this kind of power for a reason.
.

What would be the way to go about it? Presidents don't have WHAT kind of power? On what legal standard and/or precedent do you base that opinion?

The way to go about it is for him to stay in the executive branch.
He can not and should not deem any law unconstitutional.
He does not and should not have the power to instruct the DOJ in what they should or should not defend within any law. No matter how good his intentions.

What I for was how you think he should 'go about it', and what SPECIFIC legal precedent yo base your opinion. Merely saying 'he cant do that' is not a solid argument.

This is for the judicial branch to handle. The President is not a king. He should not make decrees like this.

How is this a "Decree"?

reply to post by inkyminds

Sorry inkyminds, I just assumed that because you were posting that you understood the "checks and balances" placed within our government.
I base my OPINIONS on this:

Q: What power does the judicial branch have over the executive branch?
A: The Judicial Branch checks the power of Executive Branch through the use of judicial review. This allows the Article III federal courts (US District Courts, US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States) to declare an Executive Order that is relevant to a case before the court unconstitutional and unenforceable.

wiki.answers.com...

Maybe you should also consider this site, my children learned a lot from it:
www.congressforkids.net...

Let's put it another way,
What if this President or the next said that he believed abortion was unconstitutional and told the DOJ that they had to enforce that a fetus was a living human being.
Many would be happy but it would still be wrong for him to do this, because it is not his job and it would give him more power than he is supposed to have.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by jibeho
That decision you cited applies to Massachusetts. At that time, the DOJ actually defended the law in court. Now a 180 from Holder just in time for election 2012.

You want something official, take it the Supreme Court.

Why would it make a difference which state a Federal Judge is in?

Its a Federal Judge in a District Court. The authority and jurisdiction given to the District Courts is established by Congress. The Supreme Court authority is established by our constitution.

District courts are essentially trial courts that filter out the case load.

You want action, get the case to the Supreme Court. Eric Holder and Obama don't have the authority either.

What?! Are we done now? Well I hope some actually do "LOOK AT ALL SIDES" but the only way to do that is to pull ones head out of the sand.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Let's put it another way,
What if this President or the next said that he believed abortion was unconstitutional and told the DOJ that they had to enforce that a fetus was a living human being.
Many would be happy but it would still be wrong for him to do this, because it is not his job and it would give him more power than he is supposed to have.

So, in other words you have NO IDEA what is wrong with this recent decision, and are merely flailing about with false comparisons because you are AGAINST anything that can be connected to Obama, in a typically repetitive manner in perfect concert with the RWNM (rightwingnoisemachine)

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by inkyminds

 

Sorry inkyminds, I just assumed that because you were posting that you understood the "checks and balances" placed within our government.
I base my OPINIONS on this:

Q: What power does the judicial branch have over the executive branch?
A: The Judicial Branch checks the power of Executive Branch through the use of judicial review. This allows the Article III federal courts (US District Courts, US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States) to declare an Executive Order that is relevant to a case before the court unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Fascinating. Of course, you STILL haven't been able to explain how the current President sin violation of ANY laws, whatsoever.

The president and the DOJ are asserting that the section of the DOMA that denies federal benefits for legally married same sex couples is unconstitutional.

Nothing illegal about it, and you have presented ZERO evidence to support your case.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Let's put it another way,
What if this President or the next said that he believed abortion was unconstitutional and told the DOJ that they had to enforce that a fetus was a living human being.
Many would be happy but it would still be wrong for him to do this, because it is not his job and it would give him more power than he is supposed to have.

it actually wouldn't be wrong because it's just his opinion, whether it's actually unconstitutional or not, so i dunno what you're going on about. the doj can't enforce anything he suggests, just like i said in my first couple posts, the litigators that defend the act don't have to abide by his statement that sec.3 is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Let's put it another way,
What if this President or the next said that he believed abortion was unconstitutional and told the DOJ that they had to enforce that a fetus was a living human being.
Many would be happy but it would still be wrong for him to do this, because it is not his job and it would give him more power than he is supposed to have.

it actually wouldn't be wrong because it's just his opinion, whether it's actually unconstitutional or not, so i dunno what you're going on about. the doj can't enforce anything he suggests, just like i said in my first couple posts, the litigators that defend the act don't have to abide by his statement that sec.3 is unconstitutional.

the President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.

from the article you posted.

Govt. Drops Two More DOMA Cases

By Michelle Garcia Michelle Garcia – Fri Feb 25, 7:08 am ET

Los Angeles – The Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will "cease to defend" two more cases related to the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, one day after announcing it will stop defending the 15-year-old law barring government recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Assistant attorney general Tony West notified the clerk of the First Circuit that the department will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services. He cited President Barack Obama's recent assertion that DOMA is unconstitutional.

news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Quadrivium

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Let's put it another way,
What if this President or the next said that he believed abortion was unconstitutional and told the DOJ that they had to enforce that a fetus was a living human being.
Many would be happy but it would still be wrong for him to do this, because it is not his job and it would give him more power than he is supposed to have.

it actually wouldn't be wrong because it's just his opinion, whether it's actually unconstitutional or not, so i dunno what you're going on about. the doj can't enforce anything he suggests, just like i said in my first couple posts, the litigators that defend the act don't have to abide by his statement that sec.3 is unconstitutional.

the President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.

from the article you posted.

...yyup.

and if you kept reading, you'd see the exact same thing i just posted in there too.

Originally posted by Annee
Govt. Drops Two More DOMA Cases

By Michelle Garcia Michelle Garcia – Fri Feb 25, 7:08 am ET

Los Angeles – The Department of Justice announced Thursday that it will "cease to defend" two more cases related to the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, one day after announcing it will stop defending the 15-year-old law barring government recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Assistant attorney general Tony West notified the clerk of the First Circuit that the department will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services. He cited President Barack Obama's recent assertion that DOMA is unconstitutional.

news.yahoo.com...

wildness, right?
it's pretty much black and white unconstitutional though, let's be honest. this is the wrong appraoch though, take the legal steps to remove the section or revise the act. but they won't, that will open up a floodgate. if they did that, then why not simply legalize same-sex marriage completely? not gonna happen. this translucent section only affects same-sex marriages that already exist. that's something, sure, but almost nothing when you realize what a small percent of same-sex marriages actually exist.

Originally posted by shagreen heart
. . . this is the wrong appraoch though, take the legal steps to remove the section or revise the act. but they won't, that will open up a floodgate. if they did that, then why not simply legalize same-sex marriage completely? not gonna happen. this translucent section only affects same-sex marriages that already exist. that's something, sure, but almost nothing when you realize what a small percent of same-sex marriages actually exist.

No - I think its perfect.

After listening to several talk shows discussing this (minus the over exaggerated hysterics of the rights) - - Obama is within his right to agree with a Federal Judge declaring DOMA unconstitutional and his opinion on where he stands and direct the DOJ not to defend it.

I'm old enough to have experienced the Equal Rights fight for blacks. First you had to sway public opinion. When public opinion was weighing heavily in the direction that prejudice against blacks was just plain inhuman - the government had no choice but to take sides and make it happen.

Today the fight for gay rights is about 50/50 but has continued to increase in the direction of equal rights for the same reason - - its just ignorant and plain inhuman to continue to deny gays equal rights.

Because I follow gay news - I know that LGBT representatives including gay couples have had personal meetings with Obama's administration for months - - educating them in the need for gays to have full equal rights and legal marriage.

Obama taking this stance will push that 50/'50 public and political opinion in a positive direction for gay equality. Which is exactly what should be done by the leader of our government.

The Religious Right knows this - - - and are furious. They had Bush in their pocket for the last 8 years and have gotten even more arrogant then they were before. They can scream all they want - - they've already lost this fight.

George Wallace types were once the heroes of black prejudice - - - now looking back we see them as they really were - - - pathetic ignorant hate filled prejudice "cancers" from a past generation.

So HUGE APPLAUSE for Obama - - - taking a stand for equality - - - and swaying minds in the human direction of full equality.