Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

9 Bumps

Another snub of the Constitution?



The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House (342-67) and Senate (85-14) and signed into law by then-President Clinton, but President Obama - by his declaration that this duly-enacted law is ''unconstitutional'' - has in effect created a retroactive veto canceling out this bipartisan law.
Choosing which laws the Department of Justice will enforce or not is a dangerous precedent to set - in effect, it gives the President a retroactive veto to use to invalidate any law created prior to their taking office. It's federal law defending marriage today, but what legally enacted laws will they set aside tomorrow?

Some radical activists on the left are now encouraging the Obama Administration to no longer enforce the law now that the President has deemed it ''unconstitutional.'' So not only would a federal law not be defended in court, the executive branch of the government would effectively act as though it didn't even exist

So he is playing SCOTUS now and disregarding the Constitution at the same time.

Answer Question
 
Carpy

Asked by Carpy at 6:05 PM on Mar. 3, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (114,053 Credits)
Answers (25)
  • Banning someone from marrying due to the fact that they are gay is unconstitutional. How is it that you are twisting is and deeming it a snub when the constitution is being upheld?
    onethentwins

    Answer by onethentwins at 6:13 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

  • I'm okay with ignoring laws that infringe on peoples civil liberties until they get fixed.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 6:17 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

  • Well, I think the law that ways I have to pay income tax infringes on my civil liberties. I'm going to ignore it until they fix it!
    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 6:20 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

  • This president ignores what he wants to, including the constitution. If it is ok for him to ignore laws he doesn't like ~ as our leader ~ than it should be just as ok for us (citizens) to ignore not only laws we don't like ... but also those laws that the president likes that have been actually ruled unconstitutional (his healthcare law).

    He ignores the citizens he doesn't like as well, ignores what they say, ignores what they demand, ignores what they vote on; and than he wonders why no one likes him and whimpers about it or hauls out the race card.

    We have laws for a reason, and our entire country, legal system, and our society are based on (and depend on) those laws. We now have a president who uses them like toilet paper. When everything falls apart and the citizens who ARE law abiding stand up and say enough ... those who ignored them/supported Obama will have gotten exactly what you asked for.
    Farmlady09

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 6:24 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

  • Banning someone from marrying due to the fact that they are gay is unconstitutional. How is it that you are twisting is and deeming it a snub when the constitution is being upheld?

    Because he is ignoring the checks and balances and doing as HE wishes. I actually support gay marriage in and of itself, however I do have a problem with a president that willingly ignore laws he personally does not approve of without using the proper channels of the three branches of government. It is equal to a dictatorship.
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 6:31 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

  • So he is playing SCOTUS now and disregarding the Constitution at the same time.

    But but but, he's THE ONE. At least in his own mind.

    I was reading an article about this, can't remember who it was by, maybe Newt? Anywho, it was saying a refusal to enforce a federal law could rise to an impeachable offense. If he wants to get rid of it legally that's one thing but you can't just ignore a law or refuse to enforce because you don't agree.

    Hmmm, I don't agree with the speed limits, so I don't have to obey them right?
    DSamuels

    Answer by DSamuels at 6:50 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

  • Banning someone from marrying due to the fact that they are gay is unconstitutional.

    Really? I never knew there was a constitutional right to marry.
    DSamuels

    Answer by DSamuels at 6:55 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

  • I think its unconstitutional in the fact that the federal govt. recognizes some marriages as being legal and binding that come from all 50 states, but now there are a few states that have legal binding gay marriage and for the federal govt. to accept some marriages performed by the states and not others seems unconstitutional to me

    I see that he did nothing wrong here.
    ladysylpher

    Answer by ladysylpher at 8:28 PM on Mar. 3, 2011


  • I see that he did nothing wrong here.

    No not until it is a law that YOU approve of. It is NOT constitutional for him to disregard the laws of the land.
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 8:37 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

  • however I do have a problem with a president that willingly ignore laws he personally does not approve of without using the proper channels of the three branches of government. It is equal to a dictatorship.Comment by Carpy


    ^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 8:49 PM on Mar. 3, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN