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 by onethentwins at 6:13 PM on Mar. 3, 2011
Answer by UpSheRises at 6:17 PM on Mar. 3, 2011
Answer by jesse123456 at 6:20 PM on Mar. 3, 2011
Answer by Farmlady09 at 6:24 PM on Mar. 3, 2011
Answer by DSamuels at 6:50 PM on Mar. 3, 2011
Answer by DSamuels at 6:55 PM on Mar. 3, 2011
Answer by ladysylpher at 8:28 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
Answer by QuinnMae at 8:49 PM on Mar. 3, 2011