His behavior is indefensible

Obama thinks he can choose which parts of the law he should stand behind

  • Follow Editorials

First he said "I do."

Now he says "I won't."

Once again you have to ignore what President Obama says and focus entirely on what he does. In this case, he is backing away from his firmly stated belief, uttered before being elected, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now he says that's just not constitutional -- and while the law will still be enforced, his administration won't defend it in court.

Leaving behind the duplicity of it all, it's alarming that this president believes he can pick and choose the laws he wants to further. If that's the chief executive's prerogative, then why have two other branches of government? Why even have elections?

When juries ignore the law or the evidence in rendering their verdicts, it's called "jury nullification." What we're seeing in the president's decision this week to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act is "presidential nullification."

A law that has gone into effect is the law of the land until such time as it is struck down in finality by an act of the judiciary. Until that time, the executive branch of the government is obliged to enforce the law.

This president, who famously claimed that deciding when life begins is "above my pay grade," nonetheless has decided, through boycott, to determine when marriage begins.

"Instead of following the will of the people expressed through their representatives in Congress," Coral Ridge Ministries said in a written statement, "the president has substituted his own policy judgment about homosexuality and abdicated his constitutional obligation. We are a 'government of laws and not of men,' but Barack Obama puts that principle in jeopardy by this action."

It's noteworthy that his spokesman says Mr. Obama is "still grappling" with the subject of marriage -- the fundamental building block of American society. Just what, pray tell, does the man believe firmly in?

Comments (54) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Insider Information
4009
Points
Insider Information 02/25/11 - 11:55 pm
0
0
First, you have Chuck Schumer

First, you have Chuck Schumer "forgetting" that the judiciary is a branch of government.

Now, you have the president assuming the powers of the judiciary by declaring a law unconstitutional.

What happened to checks and balances?

What other laws might the emperor declare unconstitutional? Will he declare term limits for president unconstitutional? Will he also assume the role of lawmaker as well?

orb
0
Points
orb 02/26/11 - 12:53 am
0
0
Sadly there are many in this

Sadly there are many in this country who would be happy to see Obama suspend the constitution and establish a Marxist state!

Beck Tears
0
Points
Beck Tears 02/26/11 - 02:00 am
0
0
Think how much money is being

Think how much money is being saved by not enforcing the rules. Think how much less government will be in our lives by not enforcing these. Think how much this won't effect you, and calm down.

Runner46
0
Points
Runner46 02/26/11 - 07:56 am
0
0
The majority of people voted

The majority of people voted for "change". Is this the "change" for which they voted???? Next time, ask: "What kind of change are you proposing, sir!"

Riverman1
84130
Points
Riverman1 02/26/11 - 08:27 am
0
0
Let's streamline matters and

Let's streamline matters and simply have The Leader rule on everything. He can order all departments to do what he wants without bothering to check any laws. Obedience to the ruler is necessary in a great society. Productive people must keep working and let The Leader decide what to do with the money. Work makes you free.

southernguy08
499
Points
southernguy08 02/26/11 - 08:34 am
0
0
If Bush was doing this, the
Unpublished

If Bush was doing this, the libs would be screaming "Tyrant!" Obama is doing this, and suddenly, libs say, "Hey, he's the president! Get over it!" Yeah, I'm laughing.

carcraft
25944
Points
carcraft 02/26/11 - 09:23 am
0
0
I bet attending a

I bet attending a constitutional law class taught by Obama "The Constitutional Law Professor" was a hoot. Must have been a case of pooled ignorance rather than real instruction and education with knowledge gained. If Obama was the best Harvard could do I am glad I saved my money and didn't go! Obama famously said one time" The US constitution is flawed because it is a list of restrictions and not proscriptions" LOL

carcraft
25944
Points
carcraft 02/26/11 - 09:45 am
0
0
And please don't forget that

And please don't forget that "President Obama" who swore to up hold the constitution has repeatly ignored court rulings or inapproprialety expressed his displeasure with the Judicial branch of government. During President Obama's first state of the Union address he specifically critized a Supreme Court Ruling to the cheers of the Democratic law makers. A federal Judge has ruled Obama's off shore oil drilling moritorium is in violation of federal law and issued and injunction against the ban. This injunction has been ignored. A Federal judge in Florida has ruled the Health care reform act is unconstitutional and Obama justice department has asked the judge if that means they are enjoined from proceeding with enforcement and enactment of the law. Judge Vinson is not amused by the ignorance of the lawyers for the Department of Justice. There you have it folks Obama and his administration simply think they are above the rule of law!

Gov.Palin
0
Points
Gov.Palin 02/26/11 - 10:05 am
0
0
Beck Tear, ‘Think how much

Beck Tear, ‘Think how much money is being saved by not enforcing the rules.’
OK but which is the next law they will decide not to in force. It is not the community organizer’s job to decide which laws he will enforce.

Gov.Palin
0
Points
Gov.Palin 02/26/11 - 10:40 am
0
0
‘Once again you have to

‘Once again you have to ignore what President Obama says and focus entirely on what he does.’
The community organizer keeps right on proving he has no respect for our country and constitution. But why does that surprise some people after all he sat in a church for 20 yrs listening to a preacher say, NO, NO, Not God bless America but God dam America.

effete elitist liberal
3116
Points
effete elitist liberal 02/26/11 - 11:18 am
0
0
Mike Ryan's piece of

Mike Ryan's piece of political hysterics today is laughably predictable. He points out correctly that the President is required by his constitutional oath to enforce the laws, including DOMA. But if Ryan had read AG Holder's statement, he would have seen President Obama has vowed to do just that--continue to enforce the DOMA statute. Executive enforcement and legal defense, as Ryan well knows, are two quite different things. The President is of course obliged to uphold the law of the land. Does Ryan forget that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution? What is a President supposed to do when he / she believes a federal law is in conflict with the Constitution? To which version of the law is the President obliged to give precedence? The answer is obvious: the Constitution. Let's suppose for a moment that a conservative is elected President in 2012, and early in his / her administration the legal challenge to the insurance mandate of the 2009 Health Care Reform Act reaches the Supreme Court. What do you suppose the reaction of Ryan and ACES would be if that Republican administration vigorously defended the insurance mandate before the court, despite the fact that the President campaigned on the promise to end it? Would ACES praise the President, or criticize him / her on the grounds the President failed to defend the Constitution as required by oath? Come on, now, be honest! But the real problem here is in the phrase "vigorously defend." The fact of the matter is that when we require a President to instruct the AG to legally defend a law the President believes to be unconstitutional, that opens the path to games playing of all sorts. Take either the Obama Justice Department with DOMA or a future Republican Justice Department with the insurance mandate. The AG "defends" the legality of law, but merely in a pro forma way. This is easy enough to do: send a relatively inexperience attorney to do the oral argument; prepare legal arguments that are intentionally weak; disregard stronger arguments altogether; and lots of other lawyerly tricks well known to both liberal and conservative attorneys. Do we really want to force AGs into this sort of duplicity and hypocrisy? Better yet to do just what President Obama has decided. Enforce the law, as required; but chose to stop legally supporting the law over "defending" it with hypocrisy and deception.

corgimom
32615
Points
corgimom 02/26/11 - 11:39 am
0
0
Maybe the US government has

Maybe the US government has finally figured out that marriage- which is not discussed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights- should be left up to the states. The Constitution has nothing to do with marriage.

And here I thought that the ACES was the biggest Tea Party supporter, where "less government" is one of the Party's biggest mantras.

So it sounds to me like "less government" means "do away with the things I don't like, but keep the things that I agree with".

And what about "Cut spending"- including spending lots and lots of Federal taxpayer money on defending a states' rights issue???

A President- no matter what political party he belongs to- should not support an unConstitutional law. As in the Republican president Abraham Lincoln did regarding slavery.

I am far more concerned with the collapsed economy, inflation, health care, banking, infrastructure, etc. than I am about what consenting adults do or don't do. And if people had any sense, they'd spend their time and energy on that, too.

What has greater impact on our society- two people getting married, or health care?

And considering the number of divorces and illegitimate births in this country, sounds to me like an awful lot of Americans don't feel that marriage is a fundamental building block of American society, either.

corgimom
32615
Points
corgimom 02/26/11 - 11:41 am
0
0
"A law that has gone into

"A law that has gone into effect is the law of the land until such time as it is struck down in finality by an act of the judiciary. Until that time, the executive branch of the government is obliged to enforce the law."

Hey, that's what the segregationists said too. And the slave holders.

carcraft
25944
Points
carcraft 02/26/11 - 12:13 pm
0
0
Corgimom, DOMA leaves "gay"

Corgimom, DOMA leaves "gay" marriage enterly up to the states, by rescinding DOMA Obama then opens door for the federal government to define marriage FORCING states to recognize "gay" marriage! Nobody has determined DOMA is unconstitutional as of yet. Once again Obama puts the cart before the horse by his assumption that DOMA is unconstitutional. If the President doesn't defend the law (as he has for two years) who does?

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 02/26/11 - 12:33 pm
0
0
Begin impeachment

Begin impeachment proceedings. He's violated our Constitution enough to justify it. He took an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution. He is not doing it.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 02/26/11 - 12:36 pm
0
0
Do all you Democrats

Do all you Democrats (socialists, marxists, fascists, whatever you now call youselves) realize that Democrat Bill Clinton signed the Marriage Act into law? Oh the irony.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 01:08 pm
0
0
The President has already

The President has already been held in contempt of court for ignoring the lifting of his off shore drilling ban. He cares NOTHING for the law, as is indicated by his actions.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 01:09 pm
0
0
I see techfan responds with

I see techfan responds with the typical "Bush did it too" reaction....as if that makes it ok.

WW1949
19
Points
WW1949 02/26/11 - 01:10 pm
0
0
Marriage is a union between a

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and no one will ever make me believe otherwise. It must be true that most believe this way because the population keeps growing. Marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not natural and never will be. They have to depend on the oposite to have children.

carcraft
25944
Points
carcraft 02/26/11 - 01:15 pm
0
0
Matrimony has it's root in

Matrimony has it's root in the latin "to make a mother" pretty hard for two gays or lesbians to make the other a mother! LOL

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 01:17 pm
0
0
The real issue isn't whether

The real issue isn't whether or not you are for or against gay marriage. The issue is that the President is in violation of his oath (again) and usurping the constitution. This and the other instances of him abusing power is impeachable!

Boogaloo
1
Points
Boogaloo 02/26/11 - 01:32 pm
0
0
Seems like when another

Seems like when another poster points out that "Bush did it to", maybe they are not trying to say that it makes it "ok", rather they are most likely pointing to the hypocrisy of verbally assaulting the current president while the former president received little or no criticism at all.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 01:37 pm
0
0
Are you implying that the

Are you implying that the former President didn't get any criticism? What an absurd comment.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 01:53 pm
0
0
And BTW....there is a big

And BTW....there is a big difference between a "blue ribbon task force" and the FEDERAL COURT who found Obama in contempt.

Mk Ultra
0
Points
Mk Ultra 02/26/11 - 02:17 pm
0
0
In case some of you didn't

In case some of you didn't notice, marriage is a legal issue not affiliated with the Christian church. That's why atheists can get married, Jews can get married, Muslims can get married, and soon to be Gays. Get over it, the Christian church does not own exclusive rights to marriage or it's definition.

What does it personally take away from you to let gays have a legal marriage?

Does it take away your ability to worship?

Does it take away your right to choose?

Does it take away your freedom of expression?

What TANGIBLE thing does it take away from you? Pray tell.

I'm no huge fan of Obama, but this is the right thing to do. This is a senseless law that gives religious doctrine the force of law, nothing could be more unconstitutional. I respect other beliefs and their right to live their lives as they believe God intended, it is time for them to give other Americans who don't share their beliefs the same courtesy. We are either a free nation or not, there is no in between.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 02:25 pm
0
0
It's the right thing to do?

It's the right thing to do? How is it right to ignore the constitution and our laws? If the law is incorrect, then the correct thing to do is get it changed, not for the President to declare it unconstitutional. Good lord, how can you defend this action?
As I said before, the issue is NOT whether you approve of gay marriage or not, it's whether or not you approve of the President violating his oath and the constitution.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 02:28 pm
0
0
No slam on your grammar this

No slam on your grammar this time Mk....just slamming on your seeming inability to see that the President is in violation of the Constitution, or your apathy towards his law breaking.......either one.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 02:30 pm
0
0
We are either a free nation

We are either a free nation or we are not. And THIS President has, in violation of the constitution, mandated that I purchase insurance. Federal court has deemed that action unconstitutional. Are you as adamant about THIS freedom being taken away?

Riverman1
84130
Points
Riverman1 02/26/11 - 02:31 pm
0
0
Obama needs two judicial

Obama needs two judicial systems and law enforcement branches. One to handle the mundane constitutional matters that come up, but another one just for him. Obama's agents and judges could wear special insignias, know each other privately and allow union Democratic political officers to recommend legal actions. Secret handshakes would start with the thumb and forefinger making the O sign.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs