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.
Jackson
0
Points
Jackson 02/26/11 - 01:48 pm
0
0
You had me AC until the last

You had me AC until the last sentence when you ask ,
"Just what, pray tell does the man believe in."

It doesn't matter what he believes in, it's how the constitution (which is a living document) is interpreted.
I think anything declared unconstitutional should go before the Supreme Court. The Executive Branch should not have this power period.

david jennings
624
Points
david jennings 02/26/11 - 02:08 pm
0
0
I dont think Obama believes

I dont think Obama believes in gay marriage,thats not what his position is about.What he is doing is gathering votes for 2012.

Mk Ultra
0
Points
Mk Ultra 02/26/11 - 02:24 pm
0
0
DOMA discriminates against

DOMA discriminates against those who were born a certain way, and unfairly strips them of their rights. It is unconstitutional! That's why it is not being enforced. The president is completely right in not enforcing this and I hope this is a step towards the direction of repealing this mess altogether! Defining marriage as between one man and one woman has no basis except that of religion, and as such has no place in government.

"Republicans immediately ripped the White House's decision, calling it a distraction at a time when they said the focus needs to be on the economy."

And what have the Republicans done?
1) Tried to redefine rape, effectively returning women to chattel status and undermining health and reproductive rights. Jobs created = 0
2) Boehner proposed a resolution reinforcing (i.e., it was already there) "In God We Trust" as our national motto. Jobs created = 0.
3) Cutting funding to anything related at all to Planned Parenthood, thus depriving impoverished people access to contraception, regular gyno visits, AIDS testing, etc. Jobs created = 0.
4) Boehner stated that GOP budget cuts will cost America MORE jobs, but "so be it." Jobs created = Negative amount yet to be determined.

Hypocrite much?
If you want a small government, start by kicking them out of everyone's bedrooms. THAT'S a true nanny state, something the far right just adores

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 02:40 pm
0
0
Mk..... The president does

Mk..... The president does NOT have the power to declare a law unconstitutional......you seem to keep dodging that.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 02:59 pm
0
0
Defunding planned parenthood

Defunding planned parenthood also deprives people of access to child prostitution.... We can't have that. Stop those mean republicans.

Boogaloo
1
Points
Boogaloo 02/26/11 - 03:07 pm
0
0
Some people's reading

Some people's reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I said the previous president received LITTLE or no criticism especially from this paper and it's readers. It would be "absurb" to state otherwise.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 03:29 pm
0
0
Correct. Reading

Correct. Reading comprehension must be a bit off to think Bush got little or no criticism. I agree.

corgimom
38451
Points
corgimom 02/26/11 - 04:20 pm
0
0
Obama hasn't rescinded

Obama hasn't rescinded anything. Only the Supreme Court and Congress can rescind a law.

News flash- jurisdictions choose all the time not to enforce laws and choose not to defend certain cases in court. The Feds are not alone in this.

In one of the few common sense decisions that the Federal government makes, in a time of scarce resources and low revenues, they choose not to waste money in defending a law that has a very high probability of being declared unConstitutional, and not prosecute people that aren't hurting other people in any way, shape or form. They choose instead to use their money prosecuting criminals.

And hey, do you think that maybe- just maybe- the AG has talked to Supreme Court justices and has info that the great ACES doesn't, as in how they will vote when the issue comes up in their Court?

corgimom
38451
Points
corgimom 02/26/11 - 04:25 pm
0
0
WW1949-"They have to depend

WW1949-"They have to depend on the oposite to have children."

Adoption. Surrogacy. Prior marriages. Previous relationships. IVF. Artificial insemination.

Either that, or my cousin's 6 kids are figments of everyone's imagination. And my other cousin's wife's 2 kids must be imaginary, too. Your viewpoints haven't kept up with modern medicine and current laws, not to mention the idea that many gays also have heterosexual relationships- as in reality.

This is 2011, not 1950. Many, many, many gay people have children.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 04:34 pm
0
0
Corgi...how much money is the

Corgi...how much money is the president wasting by defending the health care law, which already HAS been declared unconditional? Or reinstating his off shore drilling ban, which put him in contempt of court? Why does rule of law mean nothing to liberals?

Riverman1
93717
Points
Riverman1 02/26/11 - 05:28 pm
0
0
Can anyone think of any laws

Can anyone think of any laws the feds have announced they won't defend in court, but this one?

Asitisinaug
3
Points
Asitisinaug 02/26/11 - 05:33 pm
0
0
The President, ANY president

The President, ANY president has no right to pick and choose which laws he has the Department of Justice enforce. This is pathetic no matter which side of the law you are on.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/26/11 - 06:32 pm
0
0
The liberals have shown that

The liberals have shown that they have no respect for the rule of law....just like the president.

carcraft
28476
Points
carcraft 02/26/11 - 07:43 pm
0
0
My next question is the

My next question is the arguments advanced to allow gay marriage can also be used to advance poly amourous relations and how do you stop them ? May be you think it is ok for one guy to have four wifes and 16 children but who supports them? Oh I know we just stick our heads up our tails and pretend there are no fundamentalist Mormans or mulims that won't enter in to advance their veiw on marriage You tell me where is the line drawn?

dani
13
Points
dani 02/26/11 - 07:58 pm
0
0
carcraft...You know there is

carcraft...You know there is no line with some of these posters.

usapatriot
0
Points
usapatriot 02/26/11 - 09:42 pm
0
0
among the geniuses here,

among the geniuses here,

"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."

Folks, well, most of you anyway, this isn't about DOMA. This isn't about states rights. This is about a Constitutional scholar, community aggitator amatuer being grossly negligent and unlawful in his oath of office.

The President can opine that he THINKS something is unconstitutional. It is not within the powers of the Administrative branch to DECLARE a LAW Unconstitutional.

It is a breach of his oath of office to fail to defend the LAWS OF THE United States.

What he is saying is the DoJ will not appear in court if DOMA is challenged. What happens when you fail to defend in court? Judgement to the plantiff, law overturned.

This amatuer is attempting once again to circumvent the Constitution, circumvent Congress and legislate from his throne.

Forget DOMA. It could be any law. It could be Roe v Wade in 2013 with a GOP President, then you liberals who want to blow this off would be screaming.

If you liberals gave 1 iota about the US Constitution, you'd be all over Obama's skinny behind. Instead, you want to defend his ignorant move.

What's not surprising is him doing this in the mniddle of a recession, double digit unemployment and his impotent response to the Middle East conflict.

Once a liberal trying to deflect attention from the real problems, always a worthless liberal.

You're either for defending our Constitution or get out with the illegals.

usapatriot
0
Points
usapatriot 02/26/11 - 09:43 pm
0
0
If we let this two bit street

If we let this two bit street corner aggitator get away with this, what's next?

bushwhacker
39
Points
bushwhacker 02/27/11 - 08:32 am
0
0
Obama is the decider and is

Obama is the decider and is only exerting his powers as past presidents have done.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/27/11 - 08:33 am
0
0
How many Presidents have been

How many Presidents have been found in contempt of court?

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/27/11 - 08:51 am
0
0
The president does NOT have

The president does NOT have the power to declare a law unconstitutional, so how can he exert that power, buswhacker? Please explain.

Cadence
219
Points
Cadence 02/27/11 - 11:55 am
0
0
I think that MK made a good

I think that MK made a good argument and gave me something to think about. However, my issue is with the President joining the Judicial Branch of government. So who is President now if he is no longer Chief Executive? Checks and balances require that those lines do not cross, otherwise we end up with a theo/mono/oligarchy.

Cadence
219
Points
Cadence 02/27/11 - 11:59 am
0
0
Then, Myfather15,

Then, Myfather15, respectfully, using your parameters, it is against the laws of nature for us to use antibiotics. It is against nature to heat and cool our houses artificially. Against nature for sterile or infertile couples to marry as they cannot procreate. I think an anti gay marriage stance is based on the laws of God rather than nature.

faithson
5527
Points
faithson 02/27/11 - 04:58 pm
0
0
'Can a male and another male

'Can a male and another male procreate? Nope. Can a female and another female procreate? Nope' Yet they CAN have an intimate relationship ! A relationship that can rival the Man and Women's... who might I ask are YOU to deny them a relationship. Basically that's all most same sex couples want, a legal relationship that mirrors the marriage relationship with all the legal attributes. WHO are we to say what other people in the privacy of their own lives can or cannot DO ? Never could figure out how so many conservatives that want the 'feds' off their backs want their 'morals' pushed on others.. seems like a hypocritical stance to me.

Sideshow Bob
0
Points
Sideshow Bob 02/27/11 - 06:15 pm
0
0
Steering back on topic, which

Steering back on topic, which is NOT whether or not same sex marriage should be recognized from another state.....the topic is that the President is breaking the law by taking it upon himself to declare a law unconstitutional without going through the courts. All the diversion will not change his contempt.

Gov.Palin
0
Points
Gov.Palin 02/27/11 - 08:31 pm
0
0
faithson, ‘WHO are we to say

faithson, ‘WHO are we to say what other people in the privacy of their own lives can or cannot DO?’
They can do what they want but we do not have to recognize it as marriage.

carcraft
28476
Points
carcraft 02/28/11 - 06:27 am
0
0
Yes a male and a male can be

Yes a male and a male can be intimate as can a female and a female, as can 2 males and one females, or 6 males and one female, or 3 females and one male (get out your calculator and give the number of permutations please) or any combination you require or would possibly want but should all the progressions of intimacy be called marriage and as I ask before where do you draw the line and who draws it? Oh we will just stuff our liberal heads up our liberal tails and pretend it won't happen! And every argument you use for gay marriage can be used for poly amourous marriage! So please draw a line. Mine is drawn at the level of the Christian concept...

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs