February 24, 2011
— Gabriel Malor Setting aside whether the President can choose not to defend in the courts laws that he believes to be unconstitutional and still meet his obligations under the Take Care Clause, it seems to me there's a more fundamental problem with his DOMA decision yesterday. He has stated that he (and the Attorney General) believes that DOMA section 3 is unconstitutional and therefore indefensible. But he has instructed Executive agencies to nevertheless continue to enforce this so-called unconstitutional law.
Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the ExecutiveÂ’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the lawÂ’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.
This split-the-baby approach is unjustifiable. The President has no obligation to enforce unconstitutional laws under the Take Care clause; in fact, I'd say he's obligated not to enforce unconstitutional laws and that's exactly what prior Presidents concluded. President Obama's waffling---enforce it, but don't defend it---leads to the same eventual outcome, but only by needless delay and wasteful litigation.
For example, if a gay federal employee who is lawfully married to another dude were to apply tomorrow to add his spouse to his health insurance or seek to file their federal income taxes jointly, OPM and IRS would reject those filings under DOMA section 3. To get relief, the employee would have to hail these federal agencies into court, wherein the DOJ would promptly turn against its own client agencies and tell the court that their actions were indefensible.
How is that a good plan? Well, it's a good plan if one wants to finally see the courts extend heightened scrutiny to cases of discrimination against gays and lesbians. To date the Supreme Court has been mum about just how much justification the federal government needs to have to discriminate against gays. Drew wrote about this issue in the context of the Prop 8 case; note that Gov. Schwarzenegger and AG Brown did the same thing as Obama and Holder: they continued to enforce Prop 8, even as they told the courts it was indefensible. How predictable then that the district judge concluded that discrimination against gays should be subjected to heightened scrutiny.
It is historically noteworthy that Obama announced his DOMA decision yesterday. The governor of Hawaii also signed that state's new civil unions law yesterday. It was a Hawaii judicial decision in 1993 that the state must show a compelling interest, that is pass heightened scrutiny, in prohibiting gays from marrying. The nationwide fear that this decision would soon lead to legalized gay marriage culminated in DOMA in 1996.
Related: The Maryland legislature is poised to legalize gay marriage. It would join New Hampshire and Vermont in coming to gay marriage via the legislature and not the courts. As in the other places to legalize through the legislature, Maryland's law contains religious conscience protections for churches, religious organizations, and individual religious objectors.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
03:41 AM
| Comments (306)
Post contains 558 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: ParisParamus at February 24, 2011 03:46 AM (bgSjf)
Those issues are major losers for them and this is just an attempt to change the subject.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 03:48 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 03:49 AM (M9Ie6)
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Republicans and Democrats in the Wisconsin Assembly have agreed to a deal that will limit further debate on a bill taking away collective bargaining rights for public workers and lead to a vote on the measure later Thursday.
The deal was announced shortly after 6 a.m. Thursday following an unprecedented 40-hour debate that began Tuesday morning with only short breaks in between.
Democrats agreed to limit further amendments to just 38 with a 10-minute time limit on each one. If they take the maximum time for each, with no breaks, that would put the vote around noon.
Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan says democracy is being limited with the agreement and Democrats still plan to strenuously make their arguments over the last hours of debate.
Posted by: Tami at February 24, 2011 03:52 AM (VuLos)
Consider: if he just stops enforcing it, then some Federal Worker in, say, Texas or Florida, can get their back up, and sue (presuming they can contrive a reason) and, even without the President "defending" DOMA, the employee might win and force him to accept that its constitutional.
OTOH, if he enforces it, but refuses to defend it, the first "agreived" homosexual who sues the Government will find themselves alone with the judge, because no one from the Federal Government will show up, and they'll probably get a summary judgment. Thus rendering "unconstitutional" without him having to agitate for that, and avoiding the messy battle (not to mention electoral repercussions) of actually attempting to get DOMA repealed.
It's stupid and cowardly and immoral, but it's not necessarily a bad strategy. Which makes me wonder if a) he came up with it, b) one of his staff came up with it, or c) he just randomly picked a strategy with something to recommend it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 03:56 AM (KxyHe)
To which I say, "Thanks, Mitch."
Social Issues should be our bread-and-butter. Virtually the entire nation agrees with us on these (as well as Fiscal issues) but we run away from the argument to avoid being painted as "judgmental" or "bigoted."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 03:57 AM (KxyHe)
Posted by: Fritz at February 24, 2011 03:58 AM (GwPRU)
Posted by: Mr. Diddy Wah Diddy at February 24, 2011 03:58 AM (dY4za)
There was a post somewhere at the beginning of Obama's reign that asked if the United States would survive as a law abiding society after His term. Unfortunately, I suspect so, but only if you define "Law Abiding" as abiding by His Will in lieu of worrying about anything written on paper...like that Constitution thingy.
The only Law in the United States is the Law of the political overlord class.
Posted by: J in StL at February 24, 2011 04:01 AM (6vwCf)
You misinterpret what I was saying. I said THEY view this as bad for Republicans. I didn't say I viewed it as bad.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 04:01 AM (M9Ie6)
So, if you live in Maryland and it pisses you off much that it condones gay marriage, move to my state: Missouri, where it will NEVER pass.
Posted by: Sukiei Tawdry at February 24, 2011 04:01 AM (U8+Sc)
Posted by: dogfish at February 24, 2011 04:03 AM (N2yhW)
Posted by: Mr. Diddy Wah Diddy at February 24, 2011 04:05 AM (dY4za)
Posted by: ParisParamus at February 24, 2011 04:06 AM (bgSjf)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 04:06 AM (qIHlG)
Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
I don't know all of the particulars in the act because I haven't read it but I understood that is was written so that States like Maryland And MA could have their "gay marriage" and it would not force other States to recognize them.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 04:07 AM (M9Ie6)
That is their strategy and we need to not allow them to get away with it.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 04:09 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Sukiei Tawdry at February 24, 2011 08:01 AM (U8+Sc)
Fuck that. If it gets much worse here I'm moving to Texas and supporting the secession movement.
Posted by: Hedgehog at February 24, 2011 04:12 AM (Rn2kl)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 04:12 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: Patrick S at February 24, 2011 04:15 AM (9Ko/p)
Maryland's law contains religious conscience protections for churches, religious organizations, and individual religious objectors.
I guess they can just ignore that statute when it suits them too. What 5 years? Less?
The whole intent is to bring down the churches. The libislamomarxists don't like them.
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 04:17 AM (In1re)
17 I don't know all of the particulars in the act because I haven't read it but I understood that is was written so that States like Maryland And MA could have their "gay marriage" and it would not force other States to recognize them.
Exactly, Vic. So the federalists can shake the pom-poms about how great it is that MD has passed its own law, but the purpose and effect of Obama's and the Squish GOP's actions is that what happens in MD doesn't stay in MD. Yea team!
Posted by: snort! at February 24, 2011 04:20 AM (K/USr)
Posted by: Rich C at February 24, 2011 04:20 AM (Vqcn4)
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 04:21 AM (In1re)
Posted by: Inspector Cleuseau at February 24, 2011 04:23 AM (Q5+Og)
So everyone is coved by commiemedical law and the state takes all your shit with the death tax, the point of "marriage" for those who can't breed is, what? Saying they are married?
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 04:23 AM (In1re)
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 04:26 AM (In1re)
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 24, 2011 04:30 AM (0GFWk)
The point of marriage for some now is about federal and state benefits for being "married". And are they giving exemptions to companies that don't want to provide health benefits to same sex partners? If marriage is legal in a state, I guess they'll be forced to even if it's against the owner's religious beliefs.
Posted by: Jon in TX at February 24, 2011 04:31 AM (lRqIF)
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 24, 2011 04:33 AM (0GFWk)
Chimps should be part of human genus, scientists say.-msnbc
Great, when do we get "monkey marriage"? Better yet, "gay monkey marriage"?
Posted by: Case at February 24, 2011 04:34 AM (0K+Kw)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 24, 2011 04:34 AM (EpapN)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 04:34 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: CAIR at February 24, 2011 04:37 AM (qIHlG)
What is the point of me as a layman knowing jack shit about judicial scrutiny, strict or otherwise?
IANAL, hope to never need one but the track this train seems headed on, I probably will end up before a judge at some point and have to go to jail if I persist in my purchasing of non-approved HSA Health Insurance, try to raise my kids to believe that homosexuality is a sin (no kids and I am agnostic but what if I did believe that? So, what? Why can't I?)
At this rate, who among us is not likely to spend some time in the county jail or a good stretch in the Federal Penitentiary?
It's suffocating, it's terrifying not to know what the law is.
'S'okay. Not even the anointed know (they can't!) what it is and can have legitimate disagreements but this situation is unhealthy.
No one knows and the priesthood seem to be more and more focused on which portions of which angels should be constrained to dance to which quatrains on the head of which pins and how much they should pay for the privilege based on which footnote to a decision in States vs.Caroline!
Remind me again why we all were required to read Marbury v. Madison in College?
Oh, yeah.
Not everyone is.
Just people who get a Liberal Arts Degree!
*sticks tongue out to Amish Dude*
(Also required Newton, Liebniz and Lobachevsky, if that helps explain anything)
Posted by: Deety at February 24, 2011 04:39 AM (Jb3+B)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 24, 2011 04:41 AM (EpapN)
Posted by: Abe Vigoda at February 24, 2011 04:44 AM (yQWNf)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 24, 2011 04:45 AM (EpapN)
Posted by: Case at February 24, 2011 04:46 AM (0K+Kw)
Yes. That was my point. Because of people like Mitch Daniels (and a few on this blog) Republicans are seen as being ashamed of social issues. That's why they think they can attack us there.
If we would stand up whenever they accuse us of racism or other bigotry, or hypocrisy, or whatever, and explain ourselves, we a) probably wouldn't be in this DOMA mess in the first place and b) would not be seen as "weak" on social issues.
As it is, we back down (collective "we") at the first sign of a fight over social issues because we don't want to "offend" anyone. Well, folks, sometimes you need to be offended just so you can see that people disagree with you. Understanding that your opinion isn't the majority opinion (majority of Americans do not support Gay marriage), let alone universal might (might, I say) get you to think about why all these people disagree with you.
Libtards: Hint: It's not because of bigotry. Look for a real reason.
...Aaaand... now I have to log back onto my work VPN, so I may be out for quite some time again...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 04:52 AM (KxyHe)
But what about a bakery that just doesn't want to make a wedding cake with two dudes on it. Just because they think the whole gay thing is icky. Can they be sued (done that in Colorado I think; find a progressive jury etc)? Lunch counter, water fountain, back of the bus, yada yada.
If a lawyer can decide to not take on a client because they just don't fucking want to (hey, find another lawyer, somebody will take your case), why can't a cake decorator (or any other individual) have the same choice.
I support gay marriage and I think the whole gay thing is icky. I bet a lot of people feel the same way. In my city, there are for rent adds that insist that the apartment will only be rented to a lesbian or a lesbian couple. Nobody cares. Put up an ad that that says preference will be given to hetero couples <-- worse thank fucking Hitler.
Not everybody is stuck on the sanctity of marriage thing. I'm stuck on the absence of the "you do what the fuck you want, I do what I want and if you compare me not wanting to sell you a cake to Selma in the 50's, I get to smack you like a Honey Badger smacks a cobra.
Posted by: Anka Machines at February 24, 2011 04:56 AM (s7I0E)
In the meantime , go for the soft curvey ones.
Posted by: sTevo at February 24, 2011 04:56 AM (VMcEw)
1 I don't want to hear any complaining when next year the polygamists start suing for the right of multiple partner marriage.
You know, there could be an up side to that....
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 04:57 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Rudi Dutschke the Great at February 24, 2011 05:02 AM (qndXR)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 05:03 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: Meddler at February 24, 2011 05:04 AM (3u6Tl)
1 I don't want to hear any complaining when next year the polygamists start suing for the right of multiple partner marriage.
You know, there could be an up side to that....
Dude, there's no upside to having multiple wives...multiple concubines, yes, wives, not so much...That's the one issue the arabs are ahead of the curve on us.
Posted by: Jon in TX at February 24, 2011 05:04 AM (lRqIF)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 08:06 AM (qIHlG)
ZOMG I AM HANGING UP ON YOU NOW!!!11!
Posted by: Neal Boortz at February 24, 2011 05:05 AM (caxPK)
Posted by: melvin at February 24, 2011 05:09 AM (3OCZw)
"As in the other places to legalize through the legislature, Maryland's law contains religious conscience protections for churches, religious organizations, and individual religious objectors."
This is bull. O'Malley will refuse to defend this part of the law as unconstitutional.
These Democrats are slithering from one slimey tactic to another.
Posted by: davod at February 24, 2011 05:12 AM (GUZAT)
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 24, 2011 05:16 AM (0GFWk)
Don't be scairt.
I'm personally temperamentally more focused on Fiscal rather than Mil or So-Con issues.
Yet, I am a conservative not a libertarian.
Don't mean I can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm against "the Gay Agenda" for the same reason Dagny is.
They are useful idiots.
The progressives have always wanted to destroy any institutions that they cannot co-opt to their own statist ends.
Right now, right here, the last bastions are the remnants of Church and Family.
Which they have very effectively made cancerous inroads into via the welfare state and our education system.
So, in my mind at least, this is all of a piece with the battle in WI.
I don't belong to any church and I don't have much family but I feel it my duty to resist this.
Posted by: Deety at February 24, 2011 05:17 AM (Jb3+B)
Dude, there's no upside to having multiple wives...multiple concubines, yes, wives, not so much...That's the one issue the arabs are ahead of the curve on us.
Posted by: Jon in TX at February 24, 2011 09:04 AM (lRqIF)
Right you are. I was thinking with the wrong head again.
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 05:21 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: ParisParamus at February 24, 2011 07:46 AM (bgSjf)
FIFY
Posted by: Smartest Foreign Policy Team in History at February 24, 2011 05:25 AM (IGeTJ)
Posted by: Mjim at February 24, 2011 09:22 AM (mMdWG)
The fuck? Baghdad Bob was more coherent and believable than Col Daffy.
Posted by: The Benevolent EPA at February 24, 2011 05:27 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: nevergiveup at February 24, 2011 09:16 AM (0GFWk)
And more than one mother-in-law.
Posted by: PoconoJoe at February 24, 2011 05:28 AM (3s8nc)
It may be unconstitutional, but isn't that for a court to decide? Obama has become executive, legislative, and judicial. He needs a costume like Gaddafi.You know, a neat hat and a jacket with epaulets. And medals; lots of medals.
Posted by: kansas at February 24, 2011 05:28 AM (srmf8)
Libya has only about a million inhabitants.. we could easily take over a country like that.. and by "we", I mean a bunch of morons.
Now, as I see it, with as much oil as they got, one could set up a pretty sweet deal for a million or so conservative Americans. We could set up tax havens for rich dudes - for a price, of course - and build ourselves a nice little army so none of those punk ass Muslim countries get any ideas.
We'll work out the details later. So.. who's in??
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 24, 2011 05:33 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 24, 2011 05:33 AM (SB0V2)
It may be unconstitutional, but isn't that for a court to decide? Obama has become executive, legislative, and judicial. He needs a costume like Gaddafi.You know, a neat hat and a jacket with epaulets. And medals; lots of medals.
Posted by: kansas---------
Sounds like a job for someone with photoshop!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 24, 2011 05:34 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: agmike98 at February 24, 2011 05:35 AM (IbAYL)
When things get really bad distract with the gay issue. The other effective distraction will be to have us all looking for the birth certificate.
Posted by: kansas at February 24, 2011 05:35 AM (srmf8)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 05:36 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: PoconoJoe at February 24, 2011 05:36 AM (3s8nc)
How is it for men, even?
Posted by: BlackOrchid
---------------
Geeez, Louise.. one wife is bad enough!
I think that's what you're trying to day here, right? right?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 24, 2011 05:36 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: agmike98 at February 24, 2011 05:38 AM (IbAYL)
Does Michelle O's phalanx of fashion specialists moonlight for K-Daffy on the side?
Posted by: The Benevolent EPA at February 24, 2011 05:40 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 24, 2011 09:33 AM (f9c2L)
Are you kidding? Zero would nuke a bunch of American Conservatives taking over some dictator's sandbox, and the rest of the world would hail the yellow bastard a hero.
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 05:41 AM (OlN4e)
How long before construction starts on the new High Speed Rail projects ??
Chicago will get the first hub and $$$$$
Posted by: melvin at February 24, 2011 05:41 AM (3OCZw)
It's the final step in our devolution.
What? You don't want to distinguish your current sex partners from the more important baby daddy?
As I was giving him a ride home, one of my son's football coaches (who lives with a woman with 2 babies--not his) was telling me that his baby mama moved to Seattle and wants him to come out because she likes her baby and wants baby to have a full blood sibling. He didn't think he wanted to do that---because she lived so far away. What did I think?
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 05:42 AM (In1re)
As in the other places to legalize through the legislature, Maryland's law contains religious conscience protections for churches, religious organizations, and individual religious objectors.
Because having it as a law is all we need. I'm sure the liberal agenda dressed up wearing a feather boa would never ever decide that this isn't enough and that churches must support their made up marriages or lose a lot. I mean its not like they already don't attack churches that oppose gay marriage. I mean its not like there has been a case of declaring preaching the bible to be hate speech here. Thank god we don't have members in the judicial system that think we should look towards other nations to determine what we should do. wg
Posted by: buzzion at February 24, 2011 05:42 AM (oVQFe)
Conservative scholars of the Constitution such as I believe that nearly every law and act passed by congress sine FDR was in office is unconstitutional.
What are they going to do when we start doing the same thing? Let's suppose the evil Sarah Palin was elected President tomorrow and then first thing Monday morning after the swearing in ceremony she announced:
1. All SS withholding and payments to be stopped
2. All farm support payments and price fixing schemes to be stopped
3. The Department of Energy, EPA, Education, and all others not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be eliminated, all employees fired, and all associated laws to be not enforced.
I could go on but you bet the idea. The point being if Bama can do it, then we should be able to do it as well and not a damn peep from the liberals.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 05:43 AM (M9Ie6)
Report: NATO may attack Libya if violence continues
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 24, 2011 05:45 AM (9hSKh)
83 Will Sissypants have the stones to carry through on this threat?
No, and K-Daffy knows it. Nothing but gas.
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 05:46 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 05:46 AM (M9Ie6)
I really kind of hope you answered with some variation of "I think you should move out there and marry the woman, be a man instead of a sexually virile child, and rear your child with better values than you apparently have."
Only maybe not so blunt.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 05:47 AM (KxyHe)
did seem to work for Clinton, and for Obama, those are the shakes,Clinton can fire every US Atty to get at two, Bush can't dismiss 6
Posted by: justin cord at February 24, 2011 05:48 AM (VTmgu)
As I was giving him a ride home, one of my son's football coaches (who lives with a woman with 2 babies--not his) was telling me that his baby mama moved to Seattle and wants him to come out because she likes her baby and wants baby to have a full blood sibling. He didn't think he wanted to do that---because she lived so far away. What did I think?
My response: "So she wants another leetle bastard?"
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 05:48 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 05:49 AM (In1re)
And has any interested moron actually researched the demography of anti-sodomy laws?
Posted by: Fritz at February 24, 2011 05:49 AM (GwPRU)
Posted by: SH at February 24, 2011 05:49 AM (gmeXX)
Nation of men, not of laws, blah blah blah
Democrats are anything but democrats; and they're certainly not republicans.
Democrats are out of fucking control.
Posted by: Truman North at February 24, 2011 05:51 AM (8ay4x)
Posted by: Sukiei Tawdry at February 24, 2011 05:51 AM (U8+Sc)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 05:52 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: negentropy at February 24, 2011 05:52 AM (27KAF)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 05:56 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: momma at February 24, 2011 05:56 AM (penCf)
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 05:57 AM (In1re)
the DOJ would promptly turn against its own client agencies and tell the court that their actions were indefensible.
How is that a good plan?
Oh, it is an excellent plan, if your plan is to open up the Federal Government to discrimination lawsuits and the payouts to go with it. This is less breadcrumbs to the homosexual community as it is a large opportunity for the Trial Lawyers Association to cash in.
I'm sorry, I meant it was an opportunity to give money to the TLA from Obama's stash.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 24, 2011 06:00 AM (1hM1d)
I thought NATO reported earlier they were going to stay out of it.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 09:46 AM (M9Ie6)
Sarah Palin told them to man up, and they did.Posted by: Ed Anger at February 24, 2011 06:01 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 24, 2011 06:02 AM (0IPsJ)
Posted by: Serious Cat at February 24, 2011 06:03 AM (bAySe)
I question the timing. The union battle is going poorly for dems as everyone is waking up to the fact that PUBLIC sector unions are anti-democrat and basically a money laundering scheme for unions and democrats.
The dems need distractions.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at February 24, 2011 06:07 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 24, 2011 06:07 AM (0IPsJ)
No... He will be the recipient of a bulllit to the head in less than 7 days
Posted by: melvin at February 24, 2011 06:07 AM (3OCZw)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 06:07 AM (qIHlG)
No. Gaddafi's fate is almost sealed - he has lost the loyalty of most of the Libyian tribes, leaving only his own clan as his remaining source of support. It is just a matter of time before he falls.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 24, 2011 06:07 AM (9hSKh)
Does this motherfucker ever NOT lie?
Posted by: tangonine at February 24, 2011 06:08 AM (x3YFz)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 24, 2011 06:09 AM (0IPsJ)
Yes. He is a cagey old bastard who has no problem machine-gunning and bombing his own people. And just wait until he uses chemical weapons! He has already brought mercenaries in from the outside, and is consolidating his power in the West.
That being said, it will be tough for him to win this fight, and I hope he loses it; ending up swinging from a lamp post.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 24, 2011 06:09 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 06:11 AM (qIHlG)
The AG on behalf of the President issues a letter stating a Section of a federal law which codifies a definition of a word, which has not changed in the history of the US, soley for the federal government is somehow unconstitutional and the split the baby part is what you find unjustifiable? I suppose it goes along with your imaginary primacy of states to define the word marriage for the federal government.
I guess this is more "Defending the Constitution" by saying the federal government can't do something which the Constitution clearly allows it to.
Posted by: Rocks at February 24, 2011 06:12 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Inspector Cleuseau at February 24, 2011 06:12 AM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: Chuckit at February 24, 2011 06:15 AM (oamMX)
Posted by: melvin at February 24, 2011 10:07 AM (3OCZw)
We sure hope not.
Posted by: Lybian Umbrella Makers Loc. 666 at February 24, 2011 06:15 AM (3s8nc)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 06:16 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: curious at February 24, 2011 06:16 AM (p302b)
"This is less breadcrumbs to the homosexual community as it is a large opportunity for the Trial Lawyers Association to cash in."
Very insightful. One thing is true, if you keep changing the wiring in your house, you will constantly need to hire electricians. Same with plumbing. Too bad lawyers never actually create anything of value.
Posted by: Inspector Cleuseau at February 24, 2011 06:17 AM (Q5+Og)
...because they sure the hell ain't gonna allow the people to vote on it.
Posted by: Rocks at February 24, 2011 06:17 AM (Q1lie)
109 -This.
Captain Liar and his corrutpocrats meet with lobbyists off site - to hide the corruption and the deal-making$$$.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at February 24, 2011 06:17 AM (0fzsA)
So..... I think he just noticed that he was lit up by a laser target
Posted by: melvin at February 24, 2011 06:22 AM (3OCZw)
Posted by: eman: United People's Front of Wisconsin at February 24, 2011 06:22 AM (VmVG3)
Srsly?
Cause and Effect you think?
Why on earth would anyone think that Sarah Palin has more pull with NATO than the NYT's?
That's just crazy. Pure and simple.
Just in case you want to debate this, I got a riddle for you...
How do you know there are no elephants in your refrigerator?
(I totally didn't get this when I was little kid because no one I ever knew actually stored Jiffy in the fridge. Jelly? Sure! But Peanut Butter? Weird.)
Posted by: Deety at February 24, 2011 06:23 AM (Jb3+B)
Posted by: Eleventy News Network at February 24, 2011 06:25 AM (9YVHf)
Posted by: curious at February 24, 2011 10:16 AM (p302b)
That's probably because the are of the subset of gays that would just be happy to be able to have long term partners covered under their insurance, that is if they are ones to have long term partners. This stuff isn't about them. Its about the forcing others into accepting what they don't want and attacking our traditional institutions.
Posted by: buzzion at February 24, 2011 06:25 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 24, 2011 06:26 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 24, 2011 06:26 AM (TMB3S)
Srsly?
Cause and Effect you think?
Why on earth would anyone think that Sarah Palin has more pull with NATO than the NYT's?
That's just crazy. Pure and simple.
Just in case you want to debate this, I got a riddle for you...
How do you know there are no elephants in your refrigerator?
(I totally didn't get this when I was little kid because no one I ever knew actually stored Jiffy in the fridge. Jelly? Sure! But Peanut Butter? Weird.)
Posted by: Deety at February 24, 2011 10:23 AM (Jb3+B)
Hey, if Obama's Cairo speech is what gets credit for what happened in Egypt, then why the fuck not?
Posted by: buzzion at February 24, 2011 06:26 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: G.W. Shrub at February 24, 2011 06:28 AM (xs5wK)
Posted by: justin cord at February 24, 2011 06:29 AM (VTmgu)
Posted by: gesc at February 24, 2011 06:29 AM (AQ5lU)
Posted by: eman: United People's Front of Wisconsin at February 24, 2011 06:34 AM (VmVG3)
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 24, 2011 06:34 AM (vA9ld)
Posted by: Jean at February 24, 2011 06:35 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: melvin at February 24, 2011 10:27 AM (3OCZw)
King Jessee Authorised Version excepted
Posted by: LC LaWedgie at February 24, 2011 06:35 AM (9YVHf)
Posted by: gesc at February 24, 2011 06:36 AM (AQ5lU)
Which they are able to do without gay marriage. Indiana had it years ago.
You're right that this is about a cultural war against traditional families, not about average people wanting to live average lives.
Posted by: Y-not at February 24, 2011 06:36 AM (pW2o8)
There is no blood. There is no steel. There is no honor. There is no glory. There is only budget.
Posted by: Mitch (the green eye shade) Daniels at February 24, 2011 06:39 AM (FKUDN)
Posted by: havedash at February 24, 2011 08:36 AM (sFD5n)
Dunno? Bu,t fuck him.
Posted by: Bams Slightly Charred Fiddle at February 24, 2011 06:41 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at February 24, 2011 06:42 AM (08Pe8)
Posted by: buzzsawmonkey at February 24, 2011 06:42 AM (SjCbh)
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at February 24, 2011 06:43 AM (08Pe8)
Brian Bosma said the so-called right-to-work legislation is dead and will not be reintroduced during this session of the Indiana House. Democrats felt so strongly about that bill that they went to Urbana, Ill., Tuesday so that Republicans couldnÂ’t achieve a quorum to vote on the bill.
Republicans in the House of Representatives hold a 60-40 majority. But they cannot pass a bill without a quorum of two-thirds, or 67 representatives. By leaving, Democrats deprived them of the quorum and placed themselves out of the reach of Indiana state troopers who might otherwise physically retrieve them and bring them back to the House session.
John Schorg, a spokesman for the Democratic legislators, said that despite Mr. Bosma’s statements, “Forgive us if we aren’t trusting.” Republican leaders, he said, had once promised not to introduce the labor bill before doing soSo maybe that great strategery of Mitch's of hoping they'd do the right thing was too nuanced, huh?
Posted by: Y-not at February 24, 2011 06:43 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Y-not at February 24, 2011 06:45 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 24, 2011 06:46 AM (61b7k)
Isn’t this really an ultra post-signing “signing statement” ?
The question now is whether a new administration can change the previous administration’s “signing statement” ?Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 24, 2011 06:48 AM (tvs2p)
Aint that some shit. Well he hasn't killed too many people yet sooo lets just wait until we're sure Kay.
Posted by: melvin at February 24, 2011 06:49 AM (3OCZw)
Posted by: Inspector Cleuseau at February 24, 2011 06:50 AM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: buzzsawmonkey at February 24, 2011 06:50 AM (SjCbh)
Arabs and leftists are never satisfied. No amount of negotiation or appeasement will sooth their savage hearts. That is how they are. It would be nice if all Republicans would be able to figure this out at some point. The more you give them, the more they think they deserve. Appeasement only whets their appetite for destruction and looting, which is ultimately what both arabs and leftists live for. Arabs live to loot and destroy others. Leftists live to loot and destroy their own societies.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 24, 2011 06:55 AM (N49h9)
The Executive Branch---in the person of the President---has the ability to veto legislation Congress has passed, and to negotiate with Congress to change either an existing law or the terms of a law being considered for passage, but it does not have the discretion to simply refuse to enforce.
You mean, used to not have the discretion to refuse to inforce. Change!
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 06:57 AM (OlN4e)
What do you think is happening in Egypt, buzzion?
I'll admit, I don't know but if I were a betting woman (and I've been known to frequent the odd OTB during Del Mar), I'd judge that this is not likely to turn out well for anyone.
If it turns out anything like Iran in the late 70's (which I think it will), I'd be more than happy to hang this on Obama's neck.
For no reason!
Obama's "Cairo Speech" had nothing to do with anything !
It was meaningless.
So.
Again. How is it that you see Sarah Palin having more pull with NATO than the NYT's?
Or should we pretend as if it so in order to fool whom, exactly?
Towards what ends?
Posted by: Deety at February 24, 2011 06:57 AM (Jb3+B)
has somebody told this nitwit that the President's job description includes executing the laws of the Unitred States, whether your political base is in favor of them or not, and further, there's this little old thing called THE CONSTITUTION (it was in all the papers) that says judicial review is NOT within the perview of the Executive branch?
Constitutional professor my ass. 0bama was probably equipment manager for the AV Club.
Posted by: BDJ at February 24, 2011 06:58 AM (cUNcx)
Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at February 24, 2011 06:59 AM (qndXR)
Posted by: robtr at February 24, 2011 07:00 AM (hVDig)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 24, 2011 07:00 AM (xMT+4)
Posted by: buzzsawmonkey at February 24, 2011 10:50 AM (SjCbh)
Bingo!
Of course, we allow this Indonesian Executive to grant waivers on his own "signature" legislation - which is even worse than the uniform suspension of a law, so it's pretty clear why the Indonesian thinks that he can just do whatever the hell he wants.
It would have been nice to have forced the ineligible piece of shit to prove his Constitutional qualifications to the SCOTUS (or anyone, for that part) to show him that this nation takes its laws seriously - even if the threat of violence looms. The law is more important.
But, we couldn't do that. So many cried that it was important to not bother the Indonesian Imbecile. So, he figured that he had a free hand ... and he obviously does. He has been allowed to perform impeachable acts, one after another, since he slimed into his occupation of the White House, and there is not even the threat of an investigation or impeachment on the horizon. So, on the Indonesian goes with his destruction. This shouldn't surprise anyone, especially not those who argued so forcefully to allow the Indonesian to slide through and ignore our most fundamental laws.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 24, 2011 07:01 AM (N49h9)
Posted by: Chucky Schumer at February 24, 2011 07:01 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: robtr at February 24, 2011 11:00 AM (hVDig)
this is the issue with Catholic hospitals and the abortion issue and being able to not conduct them in your Catholic hospital as it is wholly against the tenets of the Catholic faith.
Posted by: curious at February 24, 2011 07:03 AM (p302b)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 07:05 AM (qIHlG)
February 22, 2011 "Politico" -- The Justice Department under President Barack Obama has quietly dropped its legal representation of more than a dozen Bush-era Pentagon and administration officials - including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aide Paul Wolfowitz - in a lawsuit by Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla, who spent years behind bars without charges in conditions his lawyers compare to torture.
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 24, 2011 07:05 AM (tvs2p)
this is the issue with Catholic
hospitals and the abortion issue and being able to not conduct them in
your Catholic hospital as it is wholly against the tenets of the
Catholic faith.
Posted by: curious at February 24, 2011 11:03 AM (p302b)
The Catholic church will shut the hospitals down rather than perform abortions. Imagine how great health care would be then...
Posted by: Hedgehog at February 24, 2011 07:06 AM (Rn2kl)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 07:08 AM (qIHlG)
Dunno? Bu,t fuck him.
Posted by: Bams Slightly Charred Fiddle at February 24, 2011 10:41 AM (EL+OC)
HERE I AMM!!!!!
Posted by: Bawney Fwank at February 24, 2011 07:09 AM (Rn2kl)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 24, 2011 07:11 AM (qIHlG)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 24, 2011 11:05 AM (tvs2p)
You should link that. I think it's threadworthy.
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 07:12 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 24, 2011 11:05 AM (tvs2p)
You should link that. I think it's threadworthy.
It's in my name .. Link Under Name
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 24, 2011 07:14 AM (tvs2p)
O/T Kanye West has a tweet out that' s being retweeted by the right. It's so digusting. I guess he's trying to help defund PP.
I won't repeat it with out redacting some of it, but you can fill in the blanks
an abortion can cost a ballin' ***ga up to 50gs maybe a 100. Gold diggin' **tches be getting pregnant on purpose. #STRAPUP" my ***gas!Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 07:15 AM (In1re)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 24, 2011 10:46 AM (61b7k)
Liking is not enough of a reason. If the President finds a law or ruling unconstitutional he indeed should not enforce it. In fact, this was President Jefferson's response to the SC when it was considering Marbury v Madison.
So yes, this is a a power the president has, however this should be a high standard and clearly a ban on gay marriage is not unconstitutional by any stretch.
In a rational world, Obama would be facing impeachment for this.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 24, 2011 07:16 AM (7BU4a)
Most of the homos just want gay marriage just for health benefits from work, and lower income taxes from filing joint returns. They shouldn't get either, in my opinion.
But the really militant homos also want society in general to be FORCED to acknowledge that Dan & Stan are just as "married" as Amy and Joe. And I mean "acknowledge" it by outlawing any speech to the contrary (even including jokes about gays) as hate speech against a protected class, punishable by jail time, fines, etc.
Regardless whatever the law says (now or in the future) most people, including me, will NEVER acknowledge that 2 gays can be "married". Because laws don't change the meaning of marriage in contradiction of millenia of cultural evolution across the entire globe.
Posted by: Kortezzi at February 24, 2011 07:16 AM (piR98)
Some Idiot was on Mark Davis's talk show this morning, complaining that asking unions to re-negotiate their contracts was "violating the rule of law." Seriously.
Instead of saying, "What? Are you on crack?" Mark Davis (who is becoming more squishy every day, it seems) accepted the premise and just tried "Well it's re-negotiate or people lose jobs. You may not like it, but pick one."
I really think the correct answer is "What? Are you on crack? There is no violation of the rule of law to re-negotiate a contract. That happens all the time and has since the invention of contracts. Violation of the rule of law would be for a Governor just to issue an executive order which lowered their pay and benefits despite their current contract."
At some point, we have to start challenging them on the foundations of their beliefs- because that's where they're weakest. It's where they don't want to have the fight. Like with this Gay Marriage crap. If you ask a liberal "What's the moral difference between Gay Marriage and polygamy?" They'll change the subject, because they know there really isn't one. At least, not in their world view, and they don't want middle America to realize that they really do hold all of our morals and values in utter contempt.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 07:19 AM (8y9MW)
I'll agree that the militant gays want to punish heteros for not respecting them enough. That is, however, not the goal of the left in pushing the gay agenda. It's about going after civilization to further the goals of marxism.
The militant gays want to close down anything including churches who don't celebrate them, the left has the same goal and is just using them. It's a gay plantation.
The gay lobby should take a real hard look at who else the left is in bed with--the islamists--and their take on homosexual acts even as they imbibe.
Posted by: dagny at February 24, 2011 07:22 AM (In1re)
Sooner or later its going to be every man or woman for themselves.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 24, 2011 07:23 AM (xdHzq)
Posted by: polynikes at February 24, 2011 07:25 AM (r8Vu0)
in related news ...
February 22, 2011 "Politico" -- The Justice Department under President Barack Obama has quietly dropped its legal representation of more than a dozen Bush-era Pentagon and administration officials - including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aide Paul Wolfowitz - in a lawsuit by Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla, who spent years behind bars without charges in conditions his lawyers compare to torture.
I'm not sure this is a big deal. If you read the article, they are going to continue to pay the costs of private lawyers for their defense. So it's not liek they're leaving them out to dry.
And they are using the DOJ to defend Bob Gates, but Gates is still in the government.
I guess the issue at hand is that the Obama admin doesn't think the DOJ should be using its time defending people who are not longer in government. It is still paying for their defense, just not using DOJ lawyers to do so.
I'm not sure this is really a big deal
Posted by: Ben at February 24, 2011 07:25 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 24, 2011 07:26 AM (xMT+4)
Posted by: andycanuck at February 24, 2011 07:26 AM (7H/n0)
I'm not sure this is really a big deal
Maybe not, but with this crew you have to wonder if this is just the first step to hanging them out to dry. It isn't like they feel any moral obligation or anything.
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 07:28 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Holger at February 24, 2011 07:29 AM (YxGud)
I cannot help but think that Case was right this morning in saying that this is an issue being dragged out by the administration in order to get people talking about gay marriage rather than Egypt, Libya, terrorism, the economy, or any of the other administration disasters.
Posted by: Miss Marple at February 24, 2011 07:31 AM (Fo83G)
The sad thing is the guy started strong. He started out complaining about GM and the Banks, but then he singled out "letting them re-negotiate their contracts." At that point, I would have cut him off and said "There's nothing violating the rule of law there. Violating the rule of law was meddling in the process so that the actual shareholders and secured lenders didn't get their fair cut. Violating the rule of law was throwing billions of dollars at private companies for no reason other than they were "too big to fail." Violating the rule of law was re-defining GE (I think it was them) as a bank so they could receive TARP funds. Those were violations of the rule of law. A company filing bankruptcy and renegotiating its contracts with shareholders, lenders, and its employees is a pretty basic thing."
With this particular guy, I think he had the right talking point (his point was that without being a nation of laws, we're basically just an aristocracy), but he twisted that as a defense of the Teachers' Union in WI- which is where he went off the rails.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 07:32 AM (8y9MW)
Fantastic, Holger!
Posted by: Miss Marple at February 24, 2011 11:31 AM (Fo83G)
Seconded. All the 'ayes'?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 07:33 AM (8y9MW)
I think I will go do some ironing.
Posted by: Miss Marple at February 24, 2011 07:36 AM (Fo83G)
This is not the same thing. The Marshall gathered to the court a power that the Constitution did not grant. At the time, the common belief was that the States were the final arbiter of what the Constitution meant, not the court.
A court ruling is NOT an act of congress, indeed it is almost the opposite when talking about these kinds of rulings. There have been numerous cases of Presidents ignoring rulings from the court.
But there have been few cases where a President has openly declared that he would not enforce a law that had been previously passed by congress.
Going that route leads to utter chaos every time a different President is in office. See my post 82.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 07:37 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Mitch Daniels at February 24, 2011 07:38 AM (TpXEI)
Per Jim Hoft referring to a media report (KOLB) that the Saudi kept a journal:
"...One entry describes how Aldawsari sought and obtained a particular scholarship because it allowed him to come directly to the United State and helped him financially, which he said “will help tremendously in providing me with the support I need for Jihad.” The entry continues: “And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad. ..."
Gotta love how much they appreciate our "outreach" to the Muslim world.
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 24, 2011 07:38 AM (xMT+4)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 07:39 AM (uFokq)
What do you think is happening in Egypt, buzzion?
I'll admit, I don't know but if I were a betting woman (and I've been known to frequent the odd OTB during Del Mar), I'd judge that this is not likely to turn out well for anyone.
If it turns out anything like Iran in the late 70's (which I think it will), I'd be more than happy to hang this on Obama's neck.
For no reason!
Obama's "Cairo Speech" had nothing to do with anything !
It was meaningless.
So.
Again. How is it that you see Sarah Palin having more pull with NATO than the NYT's?
Or should we pretend as if it so in order to fool whom, exactly?
Towards what ends?
Posted by: Deety at February 24, 2011 10:57 AM (Jb3+B)
Well its not really about what I think. Its what the brain dead liberals want to believe. And they believe that what happened in Egypt is awesome and its all because of Obama. So hey if they want to pull this kind of dipshit reasoning let's use it to our advantage. Obama makes a speech and "Democracy" in Egypt so its because of Obama. So Palin says to do something and the next day its getting done, so its because of Palin. Yeah its silly, but I'm not writing the rules.
Posted by: buzzion at February 24, 2011 07:42 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: snort! at February 24, 2011 07:42 AM (K/USr)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 24, 2011 10:46 AM (61b7k)
That's fucking asinine!
The basic job of the executive branch is to uhm, execute the fucking laws!
Definition of EXECUTEtransitive verb1: to carry out fully : put completely into effect <execute a command>
2: to do what is provided or required by <execute a decree>
3: to put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence
4: to make or produce (as a work of art) especially by carrying out a design
5: to perform what is required to give validity to <execute a deed>
Why the fuck else do you think the DOJ is under the purview of the Executive branch and not the Judicial or Legislative?
Why do you think that Barack Obama is Commander in Chief rather than John Roberts, Harry Reid or John Boehner?
As head of State and as leader of his party, a President can and should have influence on members of Congress when it comes to legislative decisions and judicial appointments.
But no President can make laws and no President can adjudicate them.
This truly is "above his pay grade".
It's above Obama's and Washington's and Lincoln's fucking "pay grade".*
By the way, how on earth could anyone think that an executive branch deciding which laws and conventions it will enforce or abide by depending upon the whim of the elected President constitutes checks and balances?
Weird. I pretty much thought I had the basics sussed out in 8th Grade History but tell me again.
Where are the checks?
Where is the balance?
In your retarded scheme?
*(Not at all interested in getting fucking into it with you right now and you know who you are! Can't you let a fucking rhetorical point fly without hopping on your hobby horse? Please? STG Judge Napolitano! It's not new info, not to most folks around here!)
Posted by: Deety at February 24, 2011 07:44 AM (Jb3+B)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 07:44 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 11:37 AM (M9Ie6)
And that is why again I believe it should require a high standard of a clear violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson's original notion that each branch of government should coequally decide constitutionality has a lot of merit - especially because it essentially puts three constitutionality checks on each law/ruling.
Now it does require something that we don't have now though - an electorate willing to punish politicians for not following the Constitution and indeed can lead to chaos if abused.
But ultimately if people aren't willing to take their elected officials to task over such abuses of power, arbitrary chaos will always be the result, no matter what the laws, precedents, and protocols of office may say.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 24, 2011 07:49 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: havedash at February 24, 2011 07:50 AM (sFD5n)
Posted by: texette at February 24, 2011 07:50 AM (AqMvt)
This is why you never submit to blackmail. The Dems got what they want, and still aren't returning to the state. Watch them start demanding that Daniels re-authorize collective bargaining for Public Employees, the end of any budget cutting bills, etc.
And then watch Daniels and the SC GOP fold like cheap suits.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 07:56 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 07:57 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 07:59 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:00 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:02 AM (uFokq)
That depends. What are we doing with it?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:02 AM (8y9MW)
I disagree that Jefferson believed that. Once a law is enacted the President is REQUIRED to enforce it. Jefferson believed that the President's role in judging Constitutionality ended with his veto power. He further believed that the States had the last word on Constitutionality.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 08:03 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:04 AM (uFokq)
You know... I'd love to be able to time-travel and talk to some of the people who made such terrible decisions. I mean, did no one on the SC at the time stop to think, "Hey, why on earth would the Government get to decide its own scope? Shouldn't some other party have a say in that?"
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:05 AM (8y9MW)
What are we talking about here? SC has not pulled any right to work legislation. On the contrary they are pushing even harder on it and are now being sued by the unions over the Boing plant thing.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 08:07 AM (M9Ie6)
There are so many parallels between the Democrats and the Palestinians it is uncanny.
The lies, the tactics, the self-victimhood, the violence, the hypocrisy...
The only thing missing are the car swarms, and the unions are getting darn close to incorporating that!
Posted by: havedash at February 24, 2011 08:08 AM (sFD5n)
A same-sex couple of my acquaintance living in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions/gay "marriage"/whatever you want to call it decided to have a commitment ceremony about three years ago, citing their "lack of freedom" to get married and their desire to stick it to The Man. By all reports, this was a huge shebang - attendants, fancy location, big, expensive reception, the whole nine yards. After a couple of years of "committed" bliss, the relationship went sour recently, so by mutual agreement they just split up and are now off doing their own things, free as birds.
Thinking about this makes me idly wonder how much of a pain in the ass it is to dissolve a civil union (I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, and am on the way out the door to work shortly anyway - gives me something to do tonight when I get home). Granted, in this case there was no actual legal bond, so the partners were free to call it quits and move on. However, if supporters want legal civil unions to be recognized as equivalent to marriage, then it should definitely be as much of a protracted legal fustercluck to dissolve them as it is to obtain a divorce. If you want the benefits of marriage, you should damn well have to deal with the downsides and bullshit as well.
Posted by: BlueStateSil at February 24, 2011 08:08 AM (YwCHA)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:09 AM (uFokq)
From the side bar about Daniels and the SC GOP (It is SC, yes?) pulling the right-to-work legislation:
What are we talking about here? SC has not pulled any right to work legislation. On the contrary they are pushing even harder on it and are now being sued by the unions over the Boing plant thing.
No, It's Mitch Daniels in Indiana, not South Carolina
Posted by: Ben at February 24, 2011 08:11 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Justin Stien at February 24, 2011 08:11 AM (SZy+Y)
*smacks the side of the blog* "Hey! is this thing stuck???"
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 24, 2011 08:13 AM (f9c2L)
Certainly they knew that and they got EXACTLY what they wanted. There is a truly sordid story that goes with that Marbury v Madison ruling. The entire thing was plot by John Adams to grab power for the central government. First they do a midnight nomination of a pile of judges, including Marbury. Then the nominee for Chief Justice (who is then SOS) conveniently fails to deliver the certificate giving grounds for a suit.
The the former SOS now Chief Justice rules that the entire Judicial Act is unconstitutional AND that the Marbury has no standing (effectively) and that SCOTUS is the last word on constitutionality.
As I said a week or so ago, John Adams is the original big government liberal. They called them Federalists then. Later they became Whigs and when that fell apart they became Republicans. (at the time they were called Radical Republicans)
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 08:15 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: jakee308 at February 24, 2011 07:45 AM (fhTf7)
I KNEW there was a silver lining!
Posted by: FUBAR at February 24, 2011 08:15 AM (McG46)
Toby928 already corrected me. Yes, Indiana. AllenG delivers a brain fart.
However, if supporters want legal civil unions to be recognized as equivalent to marriage, then it should definitely be as much of a protracted legal fustercluck to dissolve them as it is to obtain a divorce.
Posted by: BlueStateSil at February 24, 2011 12:08 PM (YwCHA)
Divorce is only a pain anymore if there are actual disputes to settle and its not relatively amicable. It does take some time (30 days for the paperwork, I think), but all you really have to do is draw up some formal paperwork (for which there are free templates available, no less) and pay the fee to have it entered into the court's records. Assuming no one challenges it, it becomes final after X days and you're done. Even getting the papers served is basically a "best effort" kind of thing. You pay a court fee and they send someone to try up to 3 times (I think) to deliver the papers, and after that they call it good enough and consider the papers served.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:18 AM (8y9MW)
Wanna know why obama refused to mention Gaddafi by name in his speech yesterday?
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi considers the US president a blessing to the Muslim world. In a speech published in London-based al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, called him a "friend" and said there is no longer any dispute between his country and the US. Drudge Headline article:
....
He said, "Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama."
Gaddafi stressed that Obama's presidency is "a major historical gain" and said, "He is someone I consider a friend. He knows he is a son of Africa. Regardless of his African belonging, he is of Arab Sudanese descent, or of Muslim descent. He is a man whose policy should be supported, and he should be assisted in implementing it in any way possible, since he is now leaning towards peace."
Posted by: havedash at February 24, 2011 08:20 AM (sFD5n)
Which eventually led to Lincoln ignoring part of the Constitution he didn't like (yes, there's a Constitutional argument for secession) with the Civil War.
And, while I'll admit that it was probably better in the long-run than allowing the CSA to secede, it was a major assault on States Rights. The ability to leave a contract that ceases to be favorable and for which there is no remedy is a pretty major thing. As of the Civil War, the States no longer have it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:22 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 24, 2011 08:23 AM (61b7k)
But his history doesn't matter. The MFM told me so.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:23 AM (8y9MW)
I disagree that Jefferson believed that.
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide].
For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
Posted by: 18-1 at February 24, 2011 08:24 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:26 AM (uFokq)
The Plain Meaning Rule. Apply it to The US Constitution.
Question: Where, in The Constitution, is the government given the power and authority to regulate the social and cultural institution of marriage?
Is it that commerce clause thingy, again? 'Mission creep'? Or is just that The Constitution becomes bit more malleable when it comes to your own political ideology?
(I hate Obama, I didn't like Bush much (except for killing those who are trying to kill us)...Billary wasn't much good (he killed Christians who were fighting Islam on it's own terms)...and Bush I blew chucks all over the world...Reagan and Jimmah both got Marines killed for no political or economic or even military advantage...
..and how're those new guys in the House really doing? Have they brought the change you believe in? ...or is it just more of the same 'ol, same ol', 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, yadda, yada, yadda..."
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at February 24, 2011 08:26 AM (C2puJ)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:27 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Justin Stien at February 24, 2011 12:11 PM (SZy+Y)
It'll be $5 by Memorial Day. Prices have never peaked at this time of year.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 24, 2011 08:28 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:28 AM (uFokq)
Question: Where, in The Constitution, is the government given the power and authority to regulate the social and cultural institution of marriage?
It has employees and it has to decide what "marriage" means for them. If a state decides, for example, that marriage doesn't require a court to dissolve and that any pair of people can declare themselves "married" and "unmarried" at an instant, then the FedGov would be right not to recognize those marriages for its own ends.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 24, 2011 08:30 AM (BvBKY)
--nickless, 2009
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 12:28 PM (uFokq)
Ah, but according to K'Daffy, it's actually Sudanese Muslim descent. Let's make sure we add that in there, next time.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:30 AM (8y9MW)
--Obama, congratulating himself in Germany
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 12:26 PM (uFokq)
Traced far enough back every human being is of African decent.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 24, 2011 08:34 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: The Nose Knows at February 24, 2011 08:34 AM (j84s0)
You should read that book that I reviewed at the last book thread, "The Real Lincoln". One of the things brought out was that all the States at the time believed in the "right of secession". Only by locking up 1000s of newspaper publishers, editors, and the entire MD legislature was he able to silence that thought.
And when legal theory is suppressed by war, it is only legal as long as you maintain the bayonets in place over the legislators.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 08:35 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:35 AM (uFokq)
By the way, it is called "The War of The Rebellion."
We won.
You lost.
Get over it.
Posted by: The North at February 24, 2011 08:37 AM (LH6ir)
Or until enough Generations have passed that only the "kook fringe" even remembers said legal theory, let alone believes it.
I imagine that if you were to ask most people if they believed that States had the right to secede, they'd say "no." If you further asked "why not" I doubt very many of those would say, "because the right was taken away by the Civil War." They just wouldn't know.
I didn't realize that States should have secession rights until a couple of years ago. My Govt Teacher in HS (an admitted lefty, but usually pretty good about putting that on a shelf) just kind of wizzed past that part when we studied the Constitution (something we did for about 1 day, now that I think about it. Maybe he wasn't as good at putting his lefty-ness on a shelf as I remember...)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:39 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:40 AM (uFokq)
As I said, that doesn't say the President could ignore acts of congress after they were signed into law. he is required to enforce the law. He can veto acts of congress as his part of the checks but once they become law he is the chief enforcement officer responsible for their use.
If he is allowed to ignore congress then there is no "checks and balances", he becomes king at that point and may as well dissolve congress the way the old kings of England used to dissolve parliament and rule by decree.
And decrees by the court are not the same thing.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 08:40 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 08:40 AM (OlN4e)
Hey, I refrained from calling it "The War of Northern Aggression." At least let me keep "Civil War."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:41 AM (8y9MW)
Yeah, one of M. Night's 3 good movies (6th Sense, Unbreakable, Signs).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 08:42 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 08:42 AM (OlN4e)
hola all
anyone see the yahoo story out of texas about the dude who got arrested for trying to build a bomb to take out bush?
i'm guessing his religion.....um.....amish?
Posted by: navycopjoe at February 24, 2011 08:43 AM (pYurd)
Posted by: nickless at February 24, 2011 08:43 AM (MMC8r)
Never heard of it.
I did see UNBREAKABLE, though.
With Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson, I think. Pretty good.
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 12:40 PM (uFokq)
I liked it better before M. Night opened his mouth and declared that it was the movie that helped to spark all the rash of comic book movies coming out.
Posted by: buzzion at February 24, 2011 08:43 AM (oVQFe)
I was going to ignore that post rather than watch a rational discussion devolve into yet another flame war.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 08:43 AM (M9Ie6)
This was the argument used by many to criticize Bush's "signing statements." It's a perfectly valid and correct argument, but until Congress challenges the president it is moot.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 24, 2011 08:45 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:45 AM (uFokq)
hola all
anyone see the yahoo story out of texas about the dude who got arrested for trying to build a bomb to take out bush?
i'm guessing his religion.....um.....amish?
Wrong, Mennonite! 
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 24, 2011 08:45 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:46 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at February 24, 2011 12:42 PM (8y9MW)
6th Sense was excellent. I still can't decide if I really like Signs. It was weirdly interesting. Worth watching, but odd.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 24, 2011 12:43 PM (G/MYk)
Here I'll help you decide. Would you ever consider invading a place that is 70% toxic to you while wearing absolutely no protective equipment against it whatsoever?
Posted by: buzzion at February 24, 2011 08:46 AM (oVQFe)
Actually, no. You realize Congress controls the purse strings, right? So if congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President has taken an oath not to enforce it. In response, Congress can defund whatever elements of the executive branch it wants.
Conversely, if the President enacts an unconstitutional enforcement of some sort, Congress is obligated by its oath to remove funding for it. Checks and balances...
Let's take a specific example - let's suppose that in 2012 we elected a Republican president with roughly the same congressional makeup.
Obamacare repeal fails in the Senate. The Courts punt. Should the president then enforce it or not?
Posted by: 18-1 at February 24, 2011 08:46 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: nickless at February 24, 2011 08:47 AM (MMC8r)
Y not. The thread is dead.
Posted by: Bieber must die, for harvest at February 24, 2011 08:47 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 24, 2011 12:45 PM (LH6ir)
I don't agree with signing statements either. If he thinks a law is unconstitutional he has sworn an oath that requires him to veto it, not pussy out with a wimp statement.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 08:48 AM (M9Ie6)
.....
Shocker of Shockers: Daily Beast:
Wisconsin Protests: Rise of the Left Wingnuts
From The Daily Beast, but link goes to RRunner, NOT The Daily Beast. OK to click.
Posted by: momma at February 24, 2011 08:49 AM (penCf)
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 08:51 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: this thread at February 24, 2011 08:52 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Soothsayer at February 24, 2011 08:53 AM (uFokq)
.....
Shocker of Shockers: Daily Beast:
Wisconsin Protests: Rise of the Left Wingnuts
From The Daily Beast, but link goes to RRunner, NOT The Daily Beast. OK to click.
Posted by: momma at February 24, 2011 12:49 PM (penCf)
Their ability to spell leads me to believe that they were educated in Wisconsin by the teachers currently protesting.
Posted by: buzzion at February 24, 2011 08:54 AM (oVQFe)
267 yeah, joe, we're waiting for a post about it
i see the blog is deader than a married man's sex life
did honey badge eat the co-bloggers? he's a hungry little bastard you kow
Posted by: navycopjoe at February 24, 2011 08:55 AM (pYurd)
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 12:51 PM (M9Ie6)
If the president claims powers given to Congress in the Constitution - they should move to impeach him.
And again, please answer my question. Should a Republican president enforce Obamacare in 2012 if it is not repealed?
Posted by: 18-1 at February 24, 2011 08:55 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: nickless at February 24, 2011 12:47 PM (MMC8r)
Or more likely - enforce R v W.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 24, 2011 08:57 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: rachel maddow's panties after a date with rosie o'donnell at February 24, 2011 08:58 AM (7H/n0)
Dead thread sing along...ready?
99 bottles of bea on the wall, 99 bottles of beer. Take one down, pass it to Ace, 98 bottles of beer on the wall.
Everyone...
Posted by: havedash at February 24, 2011 08:59 AM (sFD5n)
271 as long as president palin's first act in office is to clean jugear's fucking footprints off the resolute desk, it's all good
i still can't believe that fucker put his feet up on the desk
Posted by: navycopjoe at February 24, 2011 09:00 AM (pYurd)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at February 24, 2011 09:01 AM (4oadQ)
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 09:01 AM (OlN4e)
Well since a court HAS ruled it unconstitutional no he should not.
If that court is overruled by SCOTUS and the president can not get the law repealed by congress, then he has no choice. He must enforce it.
And make no mistake, congress has no qualms about impeaching a Republican. That is why Obama gets away with flaunting the law. He knows that congress will do nothing.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 09:03 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 09:03 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: momma at February 24, 2011 09:05 AM (penCf)
Posted by: maddogg at February 24, 2011 01:03 PM (OlN4e)
I'm thinkin they're at a super sekret blogger meeting in an undisclosed location.
Posted by: curious at February 24, 2011 09:05 AM (p302b)
It was directed at Johnny Reb, who seems to have forgotten that to the victor goes the spoils.
The Civil War is a perfectly acceptable term.
By the way, the first time I saw "War of The Rebellion" was on a statue or plaque at West Point.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 24, 2011 09:06 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: dagny
I resemble this remark.
Beyotch
Posted by: Blue Hen © at February 24, 2011 09:06 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Holger at February 24, 2011 09:06 AM (YxGud)
Posted by: andycanuck at February 24, 2011 09:07 AM (7H/n0)
So, to be clear, you believe that the courts are the sole arbiters of constitutionality, and that the other branches of government should follow laws/rulings/enforcements that are clearly unconstitutional?
To turn your earlier argument around, what then is to stop 5 justices from declaring themselves oligarchs? Note this was exactly Jefferson's concern.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 24, 2011 09:07 AM (7BU4a)
That or he is passed out with a blow up doll, empty Valu-rite bottles and a dead goat somewhere.
Posted by: Holger at February 24, 2011 09:08 AM (YxGud)
You have an unrealistic view of these "laws" you are discussing. A law is what I want it to be. If I like it, I keep it. If I don't like it? Well, I do what I want because I am God King President!
Posted by: B.H. Obama at February 24, 2011 09:10 AM (LH6ir)
As in the other places to legalize through the legislature, Maryland's law contains religious conscience protections for churches, religious organizations, and individual religious objectors.
Today's contest: Who here is stupid enough to believe that these protections will be honored or respected in any way, shape or form by any leftist politician or any Gay activist?
Posted by: Blue Hen © at February 24, 2011 09:11 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Holger at February 24, 2011 01:08 PM (YxGud)
Maybe that's what stinks around here.
Posted by: B.H. Obama at February 24, 2011 09:11 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Bieber must die, for harvest at February 24, 2011 09:11 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: kansas at February 24, 2011 09:11 AM (srmf8)
Posted by: Miss Marple at February 24, 2011 09:12 AM (Fo83G)
The U.S. Interior Department is holding a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Thursday to officially open the Alaska Climate Science Center -- the first of its kind in the nation, the Interior Department says.
Located at the University of Alaska-Anchorage, the center is the first of eight regional climate science centers the federal government plans to establish across the U.S.
The U.S. Geological Survey is taking the lead in establishing the centers.
According to the Fiscal 2012 U.S. Geological Survey budget proposal, “The Climate Science Centers will provide the scientific base for land and water management decisions related to changing climates.” The budget requests $11 million to complete the planned network of eight Climate Science Centers.
The Interior Department says the centers will work closely with government agencies and universities, using "existing science programs to build new capabilities." The eight regional centers will provide data on the impacts of climate change and help land managers respond.
Posted by: momma at February 24, 2011 09:12 AM (penCf)
Actually, no. You realize Congress controls the purse strings, right? So if congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President has taken an oath not to enforce it. In response, Congress can defund whatever elements of the executive branch it wants.
What is to stop the President from vetoing the bill that defunds the executive branch? What happens then? Tax revenue is still going to be collected, Congress is the branch that is constutionally authorized to determine how that money is spent, but what if the President just decides that he's going to direct the money the same as the previous year's budget, or even worse, in whatever manner he sees fit?
Impeachment? That would only work for a Republican president, no Democrat would ever be convicted.
The only thing that prevents us from falling into chaos is the willingness to follow the Constitution and we have someone in office right now who has demonstrated a manifest disregard for that document.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at February 24, 2011 09:16 AM (JxMoP)
Meaning that they can't be forced to marry someone of the same sex?
Posted by: deathweezel at February 24, 2011 09:17 AM (Et2aK)
Located at the University of Alaska-Anchorage,
Would it be wrong to hope that the roof collapses from snow accumulation when the building is empty?
Wait one...we paid for this monstrosity. Shit.
Posted by: Blue Hen © at February 24, 2011 09:19 AM (R2fpr)
Today's contest: Who here is stupid enough to believe that these protections will be honored or respected in any way, shape or form by any leftist politician or any Gay activist?
Posted by: Blue Hen © at February 24, 2011 01:11 PM (R2fpr)
gabe.
Posted by: buzzion at February 24, 2011 09:20 AM (oVQFe)
No, in fact I do agree with Jefferson. The States should be the last arbiter of the Constitution, but that is not the current way that it works.
Now Montana and Wyoming I think are bringing back nullification. We will see how that works.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 09:27 AM (M9Ie6)
Good place to cut the budget for next year.
Posted by: Vic at February 24, 2011 09:29 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Grigori at February 24, 2011 09:45 AM (+EGez)
It may be unconstitutional, but isn't that for a court to decide? Obama has become executive, legislative, and judicial. He needs a costume like Gaddafi.You know, a neat hat and a jacket with epaulets. And medals; lots of medals.
Posted by:
kansas
---------
Sounds like a job for someone with photoshop!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry
---------
Photoshop: Here
Posted by: Foole In The Rain at February 24, 2011 11:34 AM (vlZ4H)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2801 seconds, 434 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Slippery slope here we come.
Posted by: jakee308 at February 24, 2011 03:45 AM (fhTf7)