• 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!

President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
You see now that's a proper dodgy answer. One Obama's handlers would be proud of. Sounds like you have a talent for the press secretary spot. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

In President Pinocchio's administration, someone with the last name of "Earnest" is too perfect for that job even to think about replacing.
 
Cardinal said:
Then why come after me when I tried to help apdst with his confusion? Instead of drawing this out for umpteen posts you and I together could have resolved his problem much more efficiently.
Click to expand...

Come after you? :lamo

YOU are the one who has been dodging your way through post after post, obfuscating and avoiding the thread topic.
 
29A said:
Does the phrase, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, " ring any bells?



Actually, its been revised/changed about 27 times.
Click to expand...

Wut? It hasn't been revised/changed 27 times since 2012.
 
clownboy said:
Come after you? :lamo

YOU are the one who has been dodging your way through post after post, obfuscating and avoiding the thread topic.
Click to expand...

You continue to misdirect your criticism. If you believe that my help with apdst's confusion on a procedural/separation-of-government issue was "avoiding the thread topic," then you should direct your criticism toward him.
 
Anthony60 said:
He effectively did that with DOMA, no?
Click to expand...


President Downlow first told his butt boy Holder not to enforce Section 3 of the DOMA years ago, on the grounds it violated equal protection. Then last year in Windsor--on what grounds Justice Kennedy's God-awfully garbled decision makes it impossible to know--the Court backed Downlow's play and officially held Section 3 unconstitutional.
 
matchlight said:
President Downlow first told his butt boy Holder not to enforce Section 3 of the DOMA years ago, on the grounds it violated equal protection. Then last year in Windsor--on what grounds Justice Kennedy's God-awfully garbled decision makes it impossible to know--the Court backed Downlow's play and officially held Section 3 unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

He's also decided not to enforce our immigration laws. I didn't know the president could just pick and choose what laws to enforce.
 
Anthony60 said:
I didn't know the president could just pick and choose what laws to enforce.
Click to expand...

As the number of Federal laws are literally countless (and yes, I used the word "literally" correctly, research it yourself), it only makes sense that the President would direct the Justice department to prioritize the enforcement of certain laws over others. There's no such thing as enforcing all of them equally because the nation doesn't have anything close to the money or manpower to do so. When you have an estimated figure as high as 300,000 laws (though again keep in mind that's just a mad estimate -- nobody knows the real number), at that point it actually makes sense to say something like "You know what? This law here is ****ing stupid. I'm telling the Justice Department to pursue these other laws instead."

None of these studies broached the separate—and equally complex—question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."
Click to expand...

The Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws - WSJ

So let me emphasize: if the Justice Department had sufficient manpower and enforced every Federal law on the books, everyone reading this would be guilty and in Federal prison.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
As the number of Federal laws are literally countless (and yes, I used the word "literally" correctly, research it yourself), it only makes sense that the President would direct the Justice department to prioritize the enforcement of certain laws over others. There's no such thing as enforcing all of them equally because the nation doesn't have anything close to the money or manpower to do so. When you have an estimated figure as high as 300,000 laws (though again keep in mind that's just a mad estimate -- nobody knows the real number), at that point it actually makes sense to say something like "You know what? This law here is ****ing stupid. I'm telling the Justice Department to pursue these other laws instead."



The Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws - WSJ

So let me emphasize: if the Justice Department had sufficient manpower and enforced every Federal law on the books, everyone reading this would be guilty and in Federal prison.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you here you would think that immigration laws would be near the top of the list on laws we will pay attention to.
 
azgreg said:
While I agree with you here you would think that immigration laws would be near the top of the list on laws we will pay attention to.
Click to expand...

I deleted that part of his post for two reasons: 1)I don't know all the facts surrounding that discussion and don't feel qualified to debate it and 2)It's off topic anyway. It's much cleaner to just address the simple question of how a President can actually choose which laws to enforce.
 
Cardinal said:
I deleted that part of his post for two reasons: 1)I don't know all the facts surrounding that discussion and don't feel qualified to debate it and 2)It's off topic anyway. It's much cleaner to just address the simple question of how a President can actually choose which laws to enforce.
Click to expand...

I understood you. There are many stupid and outdated laws on the federal books as well as on state books and all is well and good to disregard those. However, immigration law does not qualify for the same behavior.
 
>" In 1996, to help defend one-man, one-woman marriage from efforts to redefine it, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed - and President Bill Clinton signed -- the "Defense of Marriage Act." It 1) defined marriage in federal law; and, 2) enabled states -- even in the face of claims made pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause -- to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

DOMA defined marriage in federal law as follows:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 U.S.C. 7..."<

Family Research Council
 
APACHERAT said:
>" In 1996, to help defend one-man, one-woman marriage from efforts to redefine it, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed - and President Bill Clinton signed -- the "Defense of Marriage Act." It 1) defined marriage in federal law; and, 2) enabled states -- even in the face of claims made pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause -- to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

DOMA defined marriage in federal law as follows:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 U.S.C. 7..."<

Family Research Council
Click to expand...

Thanks for the ancient history lesson.
 
Cardinal said:
As the number of Federal laws are literally countless (and yes, I used the word "literally" correctly, research it yourself), it only makes sense that the President would direct the Justice department to prioritize the enforcement of certain laws over others. There's no such thing as enforcing all of them equally because the nation doesn't have anything close to the money or manpower to do so. When you have an estimated figure as high as 300,000 laws (though again keep in mind that's just a mad estimate -- nobody knows the real number), at that point it actually makes sense to say something like "You know what? This law here is ****ing stupid. I'm telling the Justice Department to pursue these other laws instead."



The Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws - WSJ

So let me emphasize: if the Justice Department had sufficient manpower and enforced every Federal law on the books, everyone reading this would be guilty and in Federal prison.
Click to expand...

And what should pop up but the prosecutorial discretion argument, as it invariably does whenever anyone calls President Pinocchio out for his habitual lying, lawlessness, and contempt for the Constitution? There must be a collectivist website someplace where his acolytes are fed the same arguments, which, however lame, they never could have thought up themselves.

What this President has made a habit of doing goes very far beyond the long-established use of prosecutorial discretion. He has flagrantly and repeatedly violated the requirement of Article II, sec. 3 that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He has also shamefully violated his oath that to the best of his ability, he would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No one knows if there will ever be a serious attempt to impeach Barack Obama, and in part that depends on whether the Republicans win a solid majority in the Senate. But if there ever is such an attempt, there will be no shortage of high crimes and misdemeanors to make up the articles of impeachment.
 
matchlight said:
And what should pop up but the prosecutorial discretion argument, as it invariably does whenever anyone calls President Pinocchio out for his habitual lying, lawlessness, and contempt for the Constitution? There must be a collectivist website someplace where his acolytes are fed the same arguments, which, however lame, they never could have thought up themselves.

What this President has made a habit of doing goes very far beyond the long-established use of prosecutorial discretion. He has flagrantly and repeatedly violated the requirement of Article II, sec. 3 that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He has also shamefully violated his oath that to the best of his ability, he would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No one knows if there will ever be a serious attempt to impeach Barack Obama, and in part that depends on whether the Republicans win a solid majority in the Senate. But if there ever is such an attempt, there will be no shortage of high crimes and misdemeanors to make up the articles of impeachment.
Click to expand...

Okay. So you want to be in Federal prison then?
 
Cardinal said:
Thanks for the ancient history lesson.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that an 18 year old is ancient ? ****ing unbelievable.

Most 18 year olds are immature, uniformed, believe they know it all, are gullible , allow their genitalia to think for them and believe the world owes them something.

It may explain how Obama got elected.
 
matchlight said:
What on earth are you talking about--if you know?
Click to expand...

As you responded to my post, I assumed you read everything contained within it. Was I mistaken?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The U.S. constitution's content is not intended to be so mysterious as to require interpretation by only our nine robed umpires. It was written by and intended for use by the common citizen representatives/executives elected by other common citizens. Often, rather than clarify the broader meaning of a constitutional clause or statement, the SCOTUS goes out of its way to make sure to leave the broader issue open and make its ruling limited to a specific (side?) issue on a specific case.

For example the constitution lists (enumerates) specific powers of the federal gov't, rights of the people and leaves all else up to the several states to decide. To call a state law permitting specific folks to be married (or carry a gun) unconstitutional because it denies "equal protection" to other folks means that only the least restrictive state law (currently in existence?) is then constitutional.

Note that a constitutional amendment, rather than a SCOTUS "interpretation", was deemed required to give women (and then blacks) the right to vote. While gender and race are specifically mentioned in the constitution "gender preference" is not. While the 2A gives the people the right to keep and bear arms many state laws are allowed to separate (sever?) the "and bear" part into a need for CCW permits for handguns.
Click to expand...

The constitution mentions arms, not arms preference! Therefore a state can define "arms" however they like.

The two appendages attached to your shoulders. You have a right to keep and bear those, nobody is infringing on that.
 
Deuce said:
The constitution mentions arms, not arms preference! Therefore a state can define "arms" however they like.

The two appendages attached to your shoulders. You have a right to keep and bear those, nobody is infringing on that.
Click to expand...

That is a very poor argument. A handgun is defined as an arm and all (in Texas) may keep them yet a permit is required to bear them concealed and it is illegal to open carry a handgun (in Texas) even with a CCW permit.

BTW, if i strike you with my "bare arm" and then take your wallet that is not "armed robbery" ;)
 
APACHERAT said:
>" In 1996, to help defend one-man, one-woman marriage from efforts to redefine it, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed - and President Bill Clinton signed -- the "Defense of Marriage Act." It 1) defined marriage in federal law; and, 2) enabled states -- even in the face of claims made pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause -- to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

DOMA defined marriage in federal law as follows:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 U.S.C. 7..."<

Family Research Council
Click to expand...

Did nobody tell the FRC that this section was overturned by SCOTUS?
 
APACHERAT said:
Are you saying that an 18 year old is ancient ? ****ing unbelievable.

Most 18 year olds are immature, uniformed, believe they know it all, are gullible , allow their genitalia to think for them and believe the world owes them something.

It may explain how Obama got elected.
Click to expand...

That Clinton signed DOMA is of academic interest but isn't helpful to how we're settling the issue now.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a very poor argument. A handgun is defined as an arm and all (in Texas) may keep them yet a permit is required to bear them concealed and it is illegal to open carry a handgun (in Texas) even with a CCW permit.

BTW, if i strike you with my "bare arm" and then take your wallet that is not "armed robbery" ;)
Click to expand...

No, it's not. If choosing the gender of my spouse is a "gender preference" issue and not a "gender" issue, then
choosing the type of arms I want is an "arms preference" issue and not an "arms" issue.

And since "arms preference" is not mentioned in the constitution, nor is "arms" defined in the constitution, it is acceptable for states or the people to define "arms" for themselves.


Or maybe, just maybe, it is silly to argue that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not an issue of gender.
 
Deuce said:
Or maybe, just maybe, it is silly to argue that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not an issue of gender.
Click to expand...


Just the opposite--it's your suggestion that is silly. State laws that exclude same-sex partners exclude them just the same, whether the partners are both men or both women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom