• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

He is not declaring the law unconstitutional. He is instructing his AG to not defend it from such a challenge.

The AG works for the president. The president is responsible for what the AG does, and that goes both ways.

Statement said:
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
 

Which means what? In the opinion of the president, the ruling will fail at higher levels of courts just as it has in lower(read the mass ruling, it was a work of art and designed to appeal to both liberal and conservative judges) and so he has instructed the AG(which he is allowed to do) to not defend the law in court. This is what has been said all along, and not only is it legal, there is a procedure to follow for doing this.
 
Which means what? In the opinion of the president, the ruling will fail at higher levels of courts just as it has in lower(read the mass ruling, it was a work of art and designed to appeal to both liberal and conservative judges) and so he has instructed the AG(which he is allowed to do) to not defend the law in court. This is what has been said all along, and not only is it legal, there is a procedure to follow for doing this.

It means the President has declared a law voted on and passed by Congress, signed into law by Clinton, unconstitutional. He does not have that power.

There's more:
Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

Therefore, upon President Obama's decision, action will be taken as a result.

Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

No where in the Constitution does the President have the power to do this - not just this President, any President. To use a hypothetical, let's say in 2012 Obama loses to a Republican and that Republican decides that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and will not defend it in the courts. That could be messy and as much as I'd like Roe v. Wade overturned, this is not the way to do it.

I see where SG's and AG's have decided this but I have yet to see a President decide this --- you may say the AG works for the President so by default the President decides - but this President outright declares it -- himself. He's not the King, this power doesn't exist. And before you say, "But it was done 13 times since 2004", then the law was broken 13 times since 2004.
 
Last edited:
It means the President has declared a law voted on and passed by Congress, signed into law by Clinton, unconstitutional. He does not have that power.

No it does not mean that. It means that the AG will not defend the law in court, which is entirely different.

There's more:


Therefore, upon President Obama's decision, action will be taken as a result.

Action of notifying courts of the decision of the executive, which the courts are not bound to heed.



No where in the Constitution does the President have the power to do this - not just this President, any President. To use a hypothetical, let's say in 2012 Obama loses to a Republican and that Republican decides that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and will not defend it in the courts. That could be messy and as much as I'd like Roe v. Wade overturned, this is not the way to do it.

I see where SG's and AG's have decided this but I have yet to see a President decide this --- you may say the AG works for the President so by default the President decides - but this President outright declares it -- himself. He's not the King, this power doesn't exist. And before you say, "But it was done 13 times since 2004", then the law was broken 13 times since 2004.

SG's and AG's work for the president. The only difference is that the president was directly involved in the discussion, but the exact same level of responsibility existed in both this case and the ones that happened under Bush.
 
Obama is once again pandering to the Left and once again is ignoring Federal law.

I see this as another example of Obama sticking his nose where it doesn't need to be.

This is 180 degrees from what he said on the campaign trail. But then he is the liar of the century.
 
No it does not mean that. It means that the AG will not defend the law in court, which is entirely different.
I'm sorry, but it's right in black and white in very clear language. It does mean that. I bolded it for you before.

Action of notifying courts of the decision of the executive, which the courts are not bound to heed.
Then the President could have signed an executive order, or held a press conference if the course will not heed it - but then again, the action isn't just notification of the courts, it's refusing to defend the law in the courts, which is why I say the President is not upholding Article 2, Section 3.

SG's and AG's work for the president. The only difference is that the president was directly involved in the discussion, but the exact same level of responsibility existed in both this case and the ones that happened under Bush.
It wasn't just a discussion, it was a decision and he declared that decision specifically and personally. I would love to see the same declaration read to the courts where Bush or Clinton, or Ford or whomever, stated specifically, they declare a law unconstitutional. I know you say they did, so there must be a record of it.

This doesn't change the fact that no where in the Constitution does this power exist for the President.
 
I'm sorry, but it's right in black and white in very clear language. It does mean that. I bolded it for you before.

This is the statement: "The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional"...this is an opinion. It has no standing in a court of law. The law is not now unconstitutional. DOMA is in fact still the law of the land. Court cases involving DOMA will still go forward. DOMA will still stand until most likely SCOTUS rules on it. What part of this is confusing you?

Then the President could have signed an executive order, or held a press conference if the course will not heed it - but then again, the action isn't just notification of the courts, it's refusing to defend the law in the courts, which is why I say the President is not upholding Article 2, Section 3.

But he is upholding the law. DOMA is still enforced. He has zero obligation to defend it in court however, which is how the process he has to follow to not defend it came about.

It wasn't just a discussion, it was a decision and he declared that decision specifically and personally. I would love to see the same declaration read to the courts where Bush or Clinton, or Ford or whomever, stated specifically, they declare a law unconstitutional. I know you say they did, so there must be a record of it.

This doesn't change the fact that no where in the Constitution does this power exist for the President.

Obama did not declare a law unconstitutional. DOMA is still the law of the land. You are confusing yourself somewhere.
 
Not really, as all that getting rid of DOMA does is finally leave it up to the states...unless of course a court case can win on Constitutional grounds much like Loving v Virginia did. And states haven't really been very receptive to SSM I hate to say.

I'd still like to see the feds run with this, and make withholding the rights of gays to marriage a violation of federal law. Unfortunately, I think the current SCOTUS would overturn it on appeal. So it looks like it really will be a state-by-state battle.
 
Found this for the other thread, and should include it here. It might clear up some misunderstandings. Source: Box Turtle Bulletin » DOMA: recap, summary, and analysis

It is important to understand that the Administration did not say that it was refusing on unwilling to defend the law but rather that it was incapable of defending the law. There simply were no arguments to present to the court.

Those who claim that the Administration is “choosing which laws to defend” are either confused or dishonest. Those who say that this will “nationalize” same-sex marriage and impose it on unwilling states are either confused or dishonest. Those who go on TV and spout completely false information about this decision are either irresponsible or dishonest. I’m inclined to suspect ‘dishonest.’
 
So I'm assuming that you also don't eat shellfish or where clothing made from two types of fiber, am I correct? Because that is against god's word as well...and you know that if you truly are "Christian" and believe in the bible, and that is TRULY believe in it, not just what you choose to, then you're agreeing with the Bible's views towards prohibiting the eating of shellfish and wearing clothing made from two types of fibers. If you are a true "Christian"...then putting God before yourself should not be a problem right? Are you one of those people who just takes bits and pieces of the bible that you want to agree/disagree with?
I don't eat shellfish, and 100% cotton boy
 
I just read that and while very interesting --- SG's and DOJ lawyers may have argued that during those specific cases, no President has come out and declared it though, not like this. Holder read the letter from the President where he stated:

I'm sorry but that's not for him to decide. You may argue that this is clear exception due as the law infringes on Executive powers but I don't see how it does. To be fair, I don't see the need to circumvent the process by simply declaring "I don't agree" and ignore it in any of the cases... this is a backdoor veto without having to step up and put pen to paper. So my "hyperbolic" rhetoric stands... what's unconstitutional is this type of action no matter who does it. That the President is violating his own Article II vow for what... political gain to get more votes during the upcoming election in 2012? Not surprising...

I kinda wonder how many people pissed at Obama for giving his opinion on this law were pissed off when Bush did similar things. Signing statements to excuse the Executive branch from laws, an AG who never prosecuted or did his job, etc. It's not like Obama invented this.
 
I kinda wonder how many people pissed at Obama for giving his opinion on this law were pissed off when Bush did similar things. Signing statements to excuse the Executive branch from laws, an AG who never prosecuted or did his job, etc. It's not like Obama invented this.

Is there one you can point out where Bush personally identified a law was unconstitutional and therefore will not be pursued by the DoJ?

Redress said:
Obama did not declare a law unconstitutional. DOMA is still the law of the land. You are confusing yourself somewhere.

Yeah, this statement from the President is confusing me.

The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.


Is that not a declarative sentence? When someone says "___ is unconstitutional" and then you tell me that's not what he said, it's not only confusing but contradictory. :shrug: If you want to go on believing what you said earlier, I'll just bow out now and not participate in the nonsense.
 
As if we didn't have enough irons in the fire right now, Obama throws this in there, too. Do we have to deal with this right now?

I guess when you need something to distract people from reality.................................
 
So this means when the Conservatives take back the white house in 2012 all they need do is instruct the DOJ not to defend, The Health Care Act, Roe v. Wade...any number of laws. So all anyone need do is launch a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of any law, since the DOJ will not defend it through the court system...it must be up to Congress to defend it. Now does anyone really expect a Conservative Congress to defend the Health Care Act? How about Roe v. Wade? Hell it well be a win at the first level, the DOJ does not appeal and bingo...no Health Care Law, Roe v. Wade is made unconstitutional by the same method it was declared constitution.....by TALK from a Judge. Fair Deal....we will trade, take your Gay Marriage...FOR NOW.
 
Is there one you can point out where Bush personally identified a law was unconstitutional and therefore will not be pursued by the DoJ?

Bush didn't declare that laws were unconstitutional and then enforce them like Obama is doing, he did the opposite. He never declared them unconstitutional but simply didn't enforce them. Look at how he tortured prisoners. That is considerably worse. Case closed.
 
This doesn't change the fact that no where in the Constitution does this power exist for the President.

The President is free to voice his opinion as long as he continues to enforce the law. As far as defending the law in court, it's not a matter that he won't but that he can't. I welcome you to come to my thread and explain what argument he should be making...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/93349-would-you-defend-doma.html

If you can't defend the Constitutionality of DOMA, then there is no way in hell that you should expect Obama to do so.

...take your Gay Marriage...FOR NOW.

I would like to hear how you would defend the Constitutionality of DOMA.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/93349-would-you-defend-doma.html
 
When you live by the sword you die by the sword, it cuts both ways, 2012 will soon be upon WE THE PEOPLE.
 
Bush didn't declare that laws were unconstitutional and then enforce them like Obama is doing, he did the opposite. He never declared them unconstitutional but simply didn't enforce them. Look at how he tortured prisoners. That is considerably worse. Case closed.

bush never tortured prisoners. waterboarding is not torture. hell, I was waterboarded, and worse, during training :2bigcry:
 
When you live by the sword you die by the sword, it cuts both ways, 2012 will soon be upon WE THE PEOPLE.

You do realize that you would need to pass a federal constitutoinal amendment at this point, right? Support for same sex marrriage is about 50/50 right now. Half of "We the People" actually support same sex marriage.
 
Obama: I only bother with laws that I like...

Obama is campaigning already by this decision so he can get the homosexual votes in 2012 that's plain to see. Another political flip flop for his convenience.
What else can we expect from this guy??
 
Take it up with the Constitutional lawyers.

why? if they could prove it they'd have charged him. the whole "bush tortured prisoners" lie is just another liberal, bedwetting, hand-wringing, pants crapping, circle jerk that retards living in the past can't seem to let go of.


pardon me if I don't shed a tear because a handful of terrorist scumbags were made to feel a litle uncomfortable. :2bigcry:
 
You do realize that you would need to pass a federal constitutoinal amendment at this point, right? Support for same sex marrriage is about 50/50 right now. Half of "We the People" actually support same sex marriage.

Hardly the truth...as of right now there are a super majority of the STATES that have amendments already in their constitutions that Defend Marriage. There has only been ONE STATE that has passed legislation that grants Queer Eye for the straight Guy Marriage, a very small state....that was lobbied from all over the nation (gays) with brides and money going to that states representatives (documented), why did the gays pick this state to purchase? Because it is one of only a few states that does not grant THE FREE PEOPLE thereof the right to have a reformation vote on any passed law. No other state in the union save this one has seen legislation passed making gay marriage legal. NOT ONE. Of course that state is Connecticut, Even the most liberal state in the Union (California) amended their constitution in defense of marriage. You are either gullible...or lying.

And this TRUTH that was just presented to you is the very REASON for BARRY OBAMA now dropping defense of traditional marriage. YOU progressives are attempting to set the State of Connecticut up to make legislation for the other 49 states...not by Ballots but by Bribery...once again. It could not be done before because NOT ONE state had passed such legislation.....all Queer Eye for the Straight Guy Laws come down from the Bench.
 
Last edited:
why? if they could prove it they'd have charged him. the whole "bush tortured prisoners" lie is just another liberal, bedwetting, hand-wringing, pants crapping, circle jerk that retards living in the past can't seem to let go of.

Obama chose not to pursue it out of respect for the office. It was independently determined that Bush did violate the Constitution and did torture those prisoners.
 
Back
Top Bottom