GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/02/23/high-crimes-misdemeanors/trackback/

  1. Uh…only Section 3 buddy. Sections 1 and 2 will still be defended. This is however great news.

    That being said, how do you guys feel about GOProud dropping ALL gay rights issues? A little intellectual curiosity on my part.

    Comment by Dooms — February 23, 2011 @ 3:51 pm - February 23, 2011

  2. also the “Obamacare is unconstitutional” meme is getting old and everyone knows that’s bull.

    Comment by Dooms — February 23, 2011 @ 3:51 pm - February 23, 2011

  3. Also, how is this unconstitutional?

    Comment by Dooms — February 23, 2011 @ 3:54 pm - February 23, 2011

  4. Thats’ what we want to know Dooms.

    Look at it this way. Either President Obama is violating his oath by not defending the laws of the United States of America or he’s violating his oath to continue to enforce the ‘unconstitutional’ law.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 23, 2011 @ 3:56 pm - February 23, 2011

  5. knowingly signs a law that is unconstitutional (Obamacare)

    Yeah, but how “knowingly”? He appears to have kidded himself, like Pelosi did, that the Constitution lets the Democrats pass whatever they want. Ill intent is hard to prove.

    AND who refuses to defend a law (DOMA) passed by Congress

    Tricky because the Executive branch is not supposed to make law, but, is supposed to think about the constitutionality of its acts of enforcement.

    In other words, Obama’s Oath of Office requires him to make good-faith efforts to enforce existing law even if he disagrees with it… unless he is prepared to -argue actively- that the required enforcement actions would be unconstitutional. Is Obama making the latter argument yet, with DOMA?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 23, 2011 @ 3:57 pm - February 23, 2011

  6. You people seem to be ignoring that section 3 was deemed unconstitutional, and is the section that will not be defended.

    Comment by Dooms — February 23, 2011 @ 4:02 pm - February 23, 2011

  7. Should a President who both knowingly signs a law that is unconstitutional (Obamacare) AND who refuses to defend a law (DOMA) passed by Congress and signed by a President that he deems to be unconstitutional be charged with impeachment?

    No. There is no sense that they thought Obamacare would possibly lose in the courts – they thought it was perfectly fine – and, setting aside the proclamation that suddenly they’ve seen the light and now recognize DOMA as unconstitutional, there are many examples of laws on the books that the DOJ has in the past simply chosen not to defend. Here is Law Prof Marty Lederman defending then DOJ attorney John Roberts (hmmm… why does that name sound familiar???) concerning a brief explaining why the DOJ will not defend a law:

    As a general matter, the Department has traditionally adhered to a policy of defending the constitutionality of federal enactments whenever “reasonable” arguments can be made in support of such statutes — i.e., whenever the constitutionality of the law is not fairly precluded by clear constitutional language or governing Supreme Court case law. This practice has been predicated on the notion that because the political branches — the Congress that voted for the law and the President who signed it — have already concluded that the statute was constitutional, it would be inappropriate for DOJ lawyers to take it upon themselves to reject the constitutional judgment shared by the President and the legislature.

    There are, however, historical exceptions to this general practice. Almost all of the exceptions fall into one of three categories. The first category is cases in which intervening Supreme Court decisions have rendered the defense of the statute untenable. This category isn’t really an “exception” to the “rule” as much as it is an illustration of how the rule operates in practice: The newly governing Supreme Court decision eliminates any reasonable argument that might have been made in the statute’s defense, other than asking the Court to overrule its governing precedent (a tactic that the SG very rarely employs, but that is not unheard of, as in the second flag-burning case (Eichman), and in Agostini v. Felton). The second category involves statutes that in DOJ’s view infringe the constitutional powers of the President himself (e.g., Chadha; Bowsher v. Synar). The third, and smallest, category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional. The most famous such case was probably U.S. v. Lovett, in 1946. More recently, after the first President Bush vetoed the “must-carry” provisions of a cable television bill on constitutional grounds and Congress overrode the veto, the Bush (41) Administration declined to defend the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions. (The Clinton Administration reversed this decision and subsequently prevailed in its defense of the law in the Supreme Court in the Turner Broadcasting litigation.)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 23, 2011 @ 4:29 pm - February 23, 2011

  8. You people seem to be ignoring that section 3 was deemed unconstitutional, and is the section that will not be defended.

    The entirety of ObamaCareless has been ruled unconstitutional, but it’s full steam ahead.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 23, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - February 23, 2011

  9. I’m not entirely certain that the future of ObamaCare can be wholly pegged to the survivability of Obama’s Presidency. The reason being, that though he claims to have influence in the process, the law passed was the creation of congress. That said, he did sign it in good faith so perhaps not an impeachable offense, but a sure sign that he has a different view of the commerce clause than the rest of us.

    As per DOMA, this is an argument that we should be having in California regarding Prop 8. I am not aware of any legal position which allows either the President, or the Governor (Schwarzenegger) to simply chose not to defend legal legislation. I personally disagree with both laws, however they are now law and should be defended as such by the government. Can you imagine what would happen if a Republican simply chose not to defend Roe v. Wade in the courts? The issue here isn’t what the laws say, but rather the dereliction of duty inherent in these decisions.

    To sum up, 1) no the President is not guilty of High Crimes & Misdemeanors where ObamaCare is concerned and 2) yes Holder, Obama et all should be held to account for cherry picking which laws to uphold and which ones not to, as that power is not vested in them by the Constitution.

    Comment by Patrick C. — February 23, 2011 @ 4:51 pm - February 23, 2011

  10. I guess we should question the legality of the Civil Rights act. Little known fact, it was illegal for blacks to marry whites (vice versa), I don’t see anyone arguing against that now.

    Comment by Doom — February 23, 2011 @ 5:22 pm - February 23, 2011

  11. [...] [...]

    Pingback by Obama and Holder Refuse to Defend DOMA - Christian Forums — February 23, 2011 @ 5:28 pm - February 23, 2011

  12. After reading Dooms comments, all I can think of is, “Thanks for bringing teh Stupid.”

    I apologize if that is uncivil.

    Comment by V the K — February 23, 2011 @ 5:30 pm - February 23, 2011

  13. Doom-

    Enough with the equating of the poor rich gays with their martinis to Blacks in America who truly knew what “oppression” meant just 40 years ago.

    I’m sick of the faux moral equivalence. Have you ever had a gay friend attacked by a police dog and the freaking National Guard?

    Get over yourself, bro.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 23, 2011 @ 5:38 pm - February 23, 2011

  14. V- You were more civil than I. :-)

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 23, 2011 @ 5:38 pm - February 23, 2011

  15. I seem to recall the Gay Activist Left assuring us that DOMA prevented states from forcing other states to accept gay marriages performed in other states. Apparently this was another leftist lie(TM).

    Comment by V the K — February 23, 2011 @ 5:42 pm - February 23, 2011

  16. Dooms throws out this red herring:

    I guess we should question the legality of the Civil Rights act. Little known fact, it was illegal for blacks to marry whites (vice versa), I don’t see anyone arguing against that now.

    Sorry, Dooms, but never did the black with white and white with black marriage ban have anything to do with something beyond one male and one female. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. But there was a color line that prevented them from marrying across the color line.

    Gays can marry, but they can not cross the same sex line. Somehow, you see crossing the same sex line as a “civil right” equal to being discriminated against because of race, color or previous condition of servitude. Now, you tell me why the Sharia adherent does not have an equally valid argument that denying one man and several wives is not the equivalence of the miscegenation prohibition.

    In my following comment, I will speak to the important issue Bruce has raised. But I could not allow your false premise to just flap about.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 23, 2011 @ 5:48 pm - February 23, 2011

  17. Bruce,

    Obamacare is unconstitutional. A judge has declared it so. Dooms says that only a part of it has been declared unconstitutional. Well, if a person drives with all care and due diligence, wearing his seatbelt, staying alert, avoiding traffic to the best of his ability, but going in the wrong direction is he to be praised and permitted to proceed?

    Until Obamacare has been given the green light by SCOTUS, it is unconstitutional.

    Whether a case can be made for enforcing DOMA would revolve around whether the courts are presented with a case or cases involving “victims” who have “standing.”

    I can not imagine any House of Representatives stomach for impeachment over DOMA. So far as Obamacare leading to impeachment, I would expect many more battles between the House and the Obamanauts that would have the effect of gelding the Obamacare horse.

    Meanwhile, push-back against Obamacare by the states is hardly at a standstill. Pelosi and Reid showed how to railroad the legislative process and be cleared and cheered by the mainstream fantasy media and liberals. (Same thing.) Obama has made a mockery of the cabinet system and proceeded with a politburo of czars and a private huge political war chest provided by TARP and the stimulus funds. This reality is also ignored by the liberals and mainstream fantasy media. However, it could finally awaken sentient voters.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 23, 2011 @ 6:19 pm - February 23, 2011

  18. >>Until Obamacare has been given the green light by SCOTUS, it is unconstitutional.

    By that logic, so are Prop H8 (Perry v Schwarzenegger), DOMA (U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional) and DADT (remember back when the only Republican group ever to accomplish anything won a judgement against it?).

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — February 23, 2011 @ 6:53 pm - February 23, 2011

  19. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GayPatriot, GayPatriot, Alexa , DNC Fail!, Ralph4159 and others. Ralph4159 said: RT @GayPatriot: Non-defense of #DOMA — High Crimes & Misdemeanors? http://tinyurl.com/6gubjzw #tcot #ucot #lgbt #marriage #gay [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » High Crimes & Misdemeanors? -- Topsy.com — February 23, 2011 @ 7:06 pm - February 23, 2011

  20. The Auntie of All Dogma,

    Kindly link to the “Motion to Stay” by the Obama Administration in the Obamacare decision. Therein lies the difference between the cases in your rebuttal and Obamacare.

    I will await your evidence with great interest. You talkingpoints law degree can not possibly let you down.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 23, 2011 @ 7:17 pm - February 23, 2011

  21. So Granny Goodness, you agree that Prop 8 should be enforced just as the Administration has been ignoring the injunction against Obamacare? Of course our contemptuous administration has shown they give the rule of law the same respect they give free societies.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 23, 2011 @ 7:18 pm - February 23, 2011

  22. and DADT (remember back when the only Republican group ever to accomplish anything won a judgement against it?).

    DADT is still in effect. Chairman Obama is STILL defending it and is arguments in the 9th Circus this Friday.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 23, 2011 @ 7:24 pm - February 23, 2011

  23. So, in a time when the Middle East is on fire, deficits are out of control, Americans are being murdered by Somali barbarians, and oil is skyrocketing… the POTUS decides the most important thing he can do is go after DOMA.

    Obama puts the “Der” in “LeaDERship.”

    Comment by V the K — February 23, 2011 @ 7:33 pm - February 23, 2011

  24. >>>Until Obamacare has been given the green light by SCOTUS, it is unconstitutional.

    Because some right-wing activist judge called it unconstitutional … Right?

    Ergo:

    Until Prop H8 has been given the green light by SCOTUS, it is unconstitutional having been declared unconstitutional by a judge

    Until DADT has been given the green light by SCOTUS, it is unconstitutional having been declared unconstitutional by a judge

    Until DOMA has been given the green light by SCOTUS, it is unconstitutional having been declared unconstitutional by a judge

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — February 23, 2011 @ 7:45 pm - February 23, 2011

  25. >>>DADT is still in effect. Chairman Obama is STILL defending it and is arguments in the 9th Circus this Friday.

    How hard do you think he’s gonna hit it?

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — February 23, 2011 @ 7:47 pm - February 23, 2011

  26. maybe you should leave posts involving legal issues to dan, who at least has a law school credential. you’re making a fool of yourself.

    Comment by Chad — February 23, 2011 @ 8:25 pm - February 23, 2011

  27. Just to put in my two cents… Bush 43 signed McCain-Feingold which anyone capable of reading (and taking seriously) the First Amendment would realize is problematic. Also, recent administrations (Bush included) certainly failed to diligently enforce immigration laws.

    Obama is simply following tradition.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — February 23, 2011 @ 8:28 pm - February 23, 2011

  28. And Bruce, what exactly would you know about being black? Poor rich gays? Sorry this isn’t the Republican National Convention, gays come in all races, creeds, and shapes, we aren’t a singular homogeneous demographic unlike some groups. Have you ever had yourself or a friend attacked by gay bashers? Been kicked out of your house, lost your job, or worse, simply because of being gay?

    I don’t know what you know about being black OR gay but from my experience they share a lot when it comes to dealing with bigotry, the only difference is it’s no longer socially acceptable to be openly racist to blacks, racists have to be much more creative than homophobes.

    Comment by Doom — February 23, 2011 @ 9:34 pm - February 23, 2011

  29. Helio explain to be how being barred from being able to marry because both parties are of the same sex is any different from both parties being unable to marry because they are of different race?

    You are born gay just as you are born black or white.

    Comment by Doom — February 23, 2011 @ 9:40 pm - February 23, 2011

  30. The Mother of All Dogma:

    Each of your examples has been under a Motion to Stay. Look it up.

    Now, Dogma Lady, show me the Motion to Stay your Obamessiah filed on Cbamacare.

    Or, perhaps you would care to lucidly explain why the Obamessiah did not file for a Motion to Stay.

    (Oh, and you parked your Putzmobile on your foot and it is leaking oil all over your eyebrows.)

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 23, 2011 @ 9:50 pm - February 23, 2011

  31. Professor Jacobson has a pretty convincing take on this:

    DOJ is required to defend US law before the courts. The DOJ is not just the legal arm of the Executive Branch, it is the legal arm of the Legislative Branch. DOJ is obligated to defend US law as it is defending the Congress. Should DOJ opt out, then Congress has no legal representation before the courts. Therefore this action by DOJ constitutes a provocative power grab by the Executive Branch, with zero recourse by the Congress. Something that a certain former part-time lecturer on the US Constitution should be aware of.

    Extending this argument out: any law Congress, when controlled by the GOP, can be brought before any court (properly judge-shopped) and find an unelected, unaccountable potentate to abrogate any law, or regulation.

    It is THE end run around the Constitution. There are already enough judges at each Federal level, to include the SCOTUS, to wipe out any legislative gains made by the GOP.

    The Constitution, and our Federal Republic, only work when all elements work as they are supposed to.

    Comment by DaveO — February 23, 2011 @ 9:59 pm - February 23, 2011

  32. Dooms,

    You are born gay just as you are born black or white.

    What is the fundamental purpose of sex? How does being born black or white interfere with propagation?

    Gays have no out except to see marriage as a social institution denied to them. Yet the fact remains that if, from a biological perspective, a gay or a lesbian uses the plumbing formula properly, pregnancy will naturally occur in all but the few cases with complicating exceptions.

    Surely, you know that homosexuals are dead enders in terms of perpetuating the species.

    Where are homosexuals prevented from playing house? What is not covered in civil unions? Why must marriage be redefined?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 23, 2011 @ 10:04 pm - February 23, 2011

  33. Thank you Dave O. Looks like I don’t need a law degree to know when something is rotting the Constitution.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 23, 2011 @ 10:11 pm - February 23, 2011

  34. Heliotrope I assume you must feel the same for couples who get married and never want kids, or people who get married but CAN’T have kids. All of those people, gays included can still RAISE children or go about other methods of having children, you are oversimplifying the issue so that it fits your narrow ideology. Separate is not equal.

    Out of all this talk of “false equivalency” your argument is the only real shining example, Marriage and Civil Unions are nowhere NEAR being the same thing.
    Portability:
    Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will
    be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.
    Ending a Civil Union:
    If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to
    disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a
    state that respects the civil union.
    Federal Benefits:
    According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and
    responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for afamily member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
    benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring
    none of these critical legal protections.
    Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
    Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind
    of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as
    taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like
    Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint
    federal/state programs.
    Filling out forms:
    Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union
    don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single
    family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries
    potential serious criminal penalties.
    Separate & Unequal — Second-Class Status:
    Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
    fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
    inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
    institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
    Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
    http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

    http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

    http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

    Comment by Doom — February 23, 2011 @ 10:16 pm - February 23, 2011

  35. the “Obamacare is unconstitutional” meme is getting old and everyone knows that’s bull.

    Actually, its the LAW, when it was struck down by a Federal Court in Florida, unless and until a higher court reverses that decision. Obamacare IS unconstitutional, and has already been thrown out. It is null. It is void. It is unenforceable, and if Obama tries to enforce it before getting a stay from a higher court, he will be breaking the law.

    And then we can impeach him. (Or for any other in a long laundry list of illegal things he’s done)

    Most corrupt president EVAH!

    Comment by American Elephant — February 23, 2011 @ 10:33 pm - February 23, 2011

  36. Really? Who has decided that health care reform is unconstitutional? Because in order for it to be considered so, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has to rule it as such. It hasn’t yet, and it doesn’t really look like it is going to– since there isn’t really anything in the Constitution saying jack squat about health care. Not sure if you knew that, but I figured I’d let you know so that you can stop misinforming your readers.

    Also! While I am not willing, by the same measure, to say that DOMA is unconstitutional by law, there has been considerable concern that it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Which actually exists. Unlike the mysterious “American’s Shouldn’t Get Health Care” amendment you seem to think is floating around out there.

    I knew that your pals in GOProud weren’t going to support gay rights because they wanted to preserve state rights– but why the hell would they want to criticize Obama for non-support of a law that restricts a state’s rights? You are both offensive AND illogical.

    Dear, dear GayPatriot, you need to know: Your GOP friends that you are trying to impress by hating on your fellow gay? They are still going to hate you. They don’t want to include you. All you are doing is alienating the people who WANT to accept you. And we do. Once you get over this self-loathing thing.

    Wow, I thought you were a troll on Twitter. You’re WAY worse on your blog.

    Comment by Ian Awesome — February 23, 2011 @ 10:38 pm - February 23, 2011

  37. Currently 3 distict courts have found Obamacare unconstitutional and two have found it to be constitutional.

    It’s godawful, wrong-headed, sector-destroying, innovation-stifling garbage, but it’s not necessarily unconstitutional. Could go either way-close call with any fair reading of the Constitution.

    Non-enforcement is legal, as is signing any legislation that has an arguable constitutional basis. Good luck with the impeachment.

    Comment by Adam — February 23, 2011 @ 10:49 pm - February 23, 2011

  38. Also, I second Sonicfrog’s commment.

    Comment by Adam — February 23, 2011 @ 10:55 pm - February 23, 2011

  39. So, you do not have a solid case for gay marriage. Okay by me.

    It is heterosexuals 97% and gays 3%. You are the one asking for the overwhelming majority to “see the light.” Now, show us the light.

    Otherwise, go yell down a chimney flue.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 23, 2011 @ 11:01 pm - February 23, 2011

  40. Why should I have to ask them for anything? Do you not understand how stupid you sound?

    Comment by Doom — February 23, 2011 @ 11:12 pm - February 23, 2011

  41. We need their “acceptance” to do anything? Yea no, where is your pride? Grow a spine. Fight back.

    Comment by Doom — February 23, 2011 @ 11:12 pm - February 23, 2011

  42. gays come in all races, creeds, and shapes, we aren’t a singular homogeneous demographic unlike some groups.

    As long as you think the right way.

    Been kicked out of your house, lost your job, or worse, simply because of being gay?

    Actually, a certain person tried to get Bruce fired simply because he’s a gay conservative. Gay liberal tolerance™ is only extended to those who think the right way and/or those whom they think they can get into the sack for a one-night stand. The rest are Neo-kulaks in need of liquidation or persona non grata.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 23, 2011 @ 11:14 pm - February 23, 2011

  43. racists have to be much more creative than homophobes.

    But when you’re a racist and homophobe on the left, you get elevated to higher status. Bonus if you’re anti-Semitic or a billionaire Judenrat.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 23, 2011 @ 11:21 pm - February 23, 2011

  44. Good to know Ian is supporting California holding to Prop 8 being legal then.

    Oh, and Dooms. The state requies certain requirements to be met to be married. This includes two people of the opposite sex. Race doesn’t change gender, neither does being gay.

    So you have the exact same privilege to marry one (1) person at a time, of the opposite sex, subject to the limitations of your state of residence, and have it recognized by the state that I do.

    How is that discriminatory?

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2011 @ 7:39 am - February 24, 2011

  45. Why should I have to ask them for anything? Do you not understand how stupid you sound?

    Spoken like a true sociopath.

    How many subgroups “want” to do things that society does not permit? Any clue Doom? Got any perspective on that? Plural marriage. Sex with children. “Open” marriage. A hit of cocaine before attempting tricky brain surgery. Slapping people silly because they won’t share the syrup at Denny’s.

    I could go on, but it only belittles the importance of finding common ground for solving the “gay marriage” conundrum.

    This str8 homophobe readily supports civil unions that clear up the legal problems for gays who love and honor their partners.

    Dooms tells me I am stupid. Fine by me. I will not let Dooms cause me to waiver one iota. But if Dooms comes out armed and dangerous into the public square, he is entirely on his own.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 24, 2011 @ 8:29 am - February 24, 2011

  46. You know what I found interesting is what Joe Solmonese said about this:

    “Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law.”

    I wonder if he felt that way about other pieces of legislation(i.e. the health-care law).

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/23/obama-administration-drops-defense-anti-gay-marriage-law/#ixzz1EtGcBhoc

    Comment by MV — February 24, 2011 @ 10:48 am - February 24, 2011

  47. Really? Who has decided that health care reform is unconstitutional? Because in order for it to be considered so, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has to rule it as such.

    How do you argue with ignorant trolls who would flunk junior high school civics.

    No, braniac, SCOTUS does NOT have to rule it as such. It HAS been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, and that is now the law of the land. Obama will undoubtedly appeal the decision, but until a higher court reverses the decision, it has been ruled unconstitutional, and that is legally binding.

    Perhaps what you meant to say is that SCOTUS will make the final ruling, and that’s very likely, but until a circuit court or SCOTUS reverses this decision, it is the law of the land, and Obamacare is unconstitutional.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 24, 2011 @ 12:03 pm - February 24, 2011

  48. Meanwhile, American Spectator ponders what America would be like if Republicans were as lawless and corrupt as the Obama administration: “Attorney General Mark Levin Won’t Enforce Roe v. Wade

    The Constitution does not empower the Executive to decide which laws are Constitutional and which are not, other than by signing or vetoing them. Once law is passed it is the Executive’s Constitutional obligation to enforce it until it can repeal or amend it through the legislative process or until a court vacates it.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 24, 2011 @ 12:09 pm - February 24, 2011

  49. You people seem to be ignoring that section 3 was deemed unconstitutional, and is the section that will not be defended.

    By a district court judge, and we know that district court judges do not have the final word on constitutinallity.

    If they did , Wilson v. Ake would have settled the issue.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — February 24, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - February 24, 2011

  50. . It HAS been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, and that is now the law of the land.

    Actually, it is not the law of the land, but the law between plaintiffs and defendants.

    Trial judges do not decide constitutional questions in the abstract. They must wait for real parties and real cases, and tailor their rulings to the parties.

    Thus, Judge Vinson only has jurisdiction to grant relief to the plaintiff states, most likely the officials of those states, and arguably the citizens of those states. He has no jurisdiction to award relief to Oregon or Hawaii, since they were not litigants.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — February 24, 2011 @ 12:18 pm - February 24, 2011

  51. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MHTxxj5nLPg#at=102

    Comment by Doom — February 24, 2011 @ 1:01 pm - February 24, 2011

  52. Helio, do you know what a sociopath is? Because if you want to go down that path, the people on this blog follow the checklist much closer than myself. I mean first things first, I’m a bleeding heart liberal, that right that makes it impossible.

    But whatever, you are just a bunch of bitter old queens.

    Comment by Doom — February 24, 2011 @ 1:05 pm - February 24, 2011

  53. Shorter Dooms:

    We need their “acceptance” to do anything? Yea no, where is your pride? Grow a spine. Fight back.

    Why should I have to ask them for anything? Do you not understand how stupid you sound?

    Sociopath
    a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

    Not caring about convincing people and telling people to accept your view or expect violence seems pretty sociopathic to me.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2011 @ 1:14 pm - February 24, 2011

  54. I’m a bleeding heart liberal, that right that makes it impossible.

    “I’m not insane. The voices in my head tell me so.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2011 @ 1:15 pm - February 24, 2011

  55. You are neither witty nor funny, You lack basic understanding of the terms you are using.

    The people on your side are more akin to sociopaths as they have a “fuck you, I’ve got mine” approach to all of this. They want us to convince THEM, they want us to jump through hoops for THEM. Sociopaths are emotionally bankrupt, they don’t feel the way a normal person feels, they focus only on themselves and what they can get out of any situation.

    There is a reason why many of the most successful business people exhibit extreme anti-social behavior.

    Comment by Doom — February 24, 2011 @ 2:39 pm - February 24, 2011

  56. Sociopaths are emotionally bankrupt, they don’t feel the way a normal person does. There is a reason why many of the most successful business people exhibit extreme anti-social behavior.

    Crack open a text book and stop coming at me with your weaksauce googlefu.

    Comment by Doom — February 24, 2011 @ 2:43 pm - February 24, 2011

  57. Ah, so Doctor Dooms seems to be implying that successful business ment are Sociopaths. But the voices in his head tell him he can’t be one.

    Needless to say. Dooms, like most sociopaths, doesn’t like having his illness pointed out to him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2011 @ 2:54 pm - February 24, 2011

  58. Why should I have to ask them for anything? Do you not understand how stupid you sound?

    Sociopaths are emotionally bankrupt, they don’t feel the way a normal person feels, they focus only on themselves and what they can get out of any situation.

    Funny how those compliment each other.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2011 @ 3:11 pm - February 24, 2011

  59. Ohh doing exactly what I knew you would, sticking your fingers in your ears and going “lalalalala I can’t hear you lalala what ever I say is right!”

    Comment by Doom — February 24, 2011 @ 3:46 pm - February 24, 2011

  60. So, American Elephant, you say because a federal judge has declared Health Care Reform (which is its name, not ‘Obamacare’) unconstitutional it is therefore unconstitutional across the land. Well, let’s take a look at those stories.

    Judge Kessler: Health Care Reform is Constitutional

    Oops, wrong one. Let’s try again…

    Health-care reform law is constitutional, federal judge rules

    Rats, I seem to be having trouble finding the right one. Let me try again…

    Mississippi Federal Judge Dismisses Health Care Challenge

    Ooh, so close. This judge tossed the challenge but left it open to be re-admitted once the plaintiffs got their act together. Of course they only have a few days left to file again…

    So no, “brainiac,” it seems what one federal judge does in one region is NOT the defining law of the land. It seems it is YOU who needs a refresher in civics.

    Comment by Sir Craig — February 24, 2011 @ 6:09 pm - February 24, 2011

  61. Craig fails yet again.

    The judge who found Obamacare unconstitutional ruled for 26 states since they were parties to the suit. Therefore the 26 states are following the constitution by ceasing implementation of the law

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2011 @ 6:19 pm - February 24, 2011

  62. Sir Craig:

    You do not understand the fundamentals of a basic civics course.

    Lots of cases have been initiated over Obamacare. In some instances, a court found that the plaintiff lacked standing. In some cases the court denied the complaint.

    There is an appeals process open in all cases. The highest appeals court is the SCOTUS. A judge finding Obamacare “Constitutional” is meaningless. Obamacare is considered to be “Constitutional” until just one judge in the land finds the law “unconstitutional.” Appeals fly here and there and eventually, the SCOTUS agrees to hear the matter and make a ruling that settles the matter. (Even then, there will often be a dissent that may well be the basis for a future case.)

    Your links are meaningless in terms of reality. The ruling in the Liberty University case is already in preparation to the appeals court. Lower courts are frequently upheld, but they are also overruled often enough. That is why the appeals system exists.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 24, 2011 @ 9:35 pm - February 24, 2011

  63. It’s always such a joy to come over and see what kind of ridulousness is being perpatrated over here.

    I’m gay (a real gay, not a Republican gay) and we’re not going to shut up about this until will have equal civil rights including the right to marry.

    You want to talk about dead-enders? It’s those who oppose us.

    Comment by Jeffery — February 25, 2011 @ 8:21 am - February 25, 2011

  64. Hmm, anyone wonder where Jeffy got his ‘real gay’ certification?

    And Jeffy, I’ll ask you the same thing Doombot refused to answer.

    The state requies certain requirements to be met to be married. This includes two people of the opposite sex. Race doesn’t change gender, neither does being gay.

    So you have the exact same privilege to marry one (1) person at a time, of the opposite sex, subject to the limitations of your state of residence, and have it recognized by the state that I do.

    How is that discriminatory?

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 25, 2011 @ 8:31 am - February 25, 2011

  65. Jeffery,

    I don’t know you from Adam’s blind goat, but I have a large suspicion that you have no gay life-long partner waiting to marry. You are wrapped up in trying to flex your real gay muscle and demand equal respect from a vast bunch of perceived homophobes who cause your real gay self esteem to rattle.

    I pointed out to Doom that gay as a gender is a dead end street. Why, do you think that gays don’t reproduce? Anybody, anybody, Bueller.

    Why doesn’t Planned Parenthood have a branch where a surrogate lesbian will let her egg and womb be fertilized for gay couples and a stud service for lesbians who want to have a tyke of their own creation? It is as sound and reasonable as gay marriage and we could all respect it just like Planned Parenthood’s killing machine for minority masses of unwanted clumps of cells.

    But thanks for dropping by, Jeffery. You are like a glowing zit on the forehead. A beacon of infection trying to pop out for no apparent reason. And do respond to me. I thrive on reading about my str8 h8 and infantile thumb sucking religion and plantation mentality. You can undoubtedly work Hitler and fascism into your rant.

    My apologies to the many people on this site whom I respect, admire and value. Jeffery is your worst enemy. Every bit of the problem any James Dobson could ever be.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 25, 2011 @ 8:52 am - February 25, 2011

  66. I’m sorry, but when did 26 states become the “law of the land”? Did you all fail to notice where I stated (and I quote), “So no, ‘brainiac,’ it seems what one federal judge does in one region is NOT the defining law of the land.” (Emphasis mine.)

    Of course this can all be appealed, but I’m speaking to the genius among you who claimed that because the federal judge in Florida (who claims a 26-state share of the nation) ruled the HCR (not Obamacare, people), “unconstitutional” (and again I quote), “It HAS been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, and that is now the law of the land.” (Again, emphasis mine.)

    The links are NOT meaningless in that they are all rulings or actions ALSO by federal judges, which again renders the elephant’s argument moot.

    I guess that whole homeschooling thing didn’t quite work out for you both. Reading comprehension: Work on it some more. You may pass the SATs yet.

    Comment by Sir Craig — February 25, 2011 @ 4:36 pm - February 25, 2011

  67. Just to note, Obama has stated his intention to continue to enforce DOMA. As a result, among other things, married gay couples won’t be filing joint tax returns this year.

    What he won’t do is actively defend the law in court. The statement from Holder indicates DOY will coordinate with Congress and ensure they can participate in defending the statute in court.

    As to the PPCA, aka Obamacare, I think the score stands at 3-1-1 – three held it’s constitutional, one threw out the entire bill, another threw out ONLY the mandate.

    Comment by Jasper — February 26, 2011 @ 11:52 pm - February 26, 2011

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.289 Powered by Wordpress