Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Nmysys wrote: The Supreme Court is The Only Authority To Determine the Constitutionality of a Law. That power resides in the Judicial Branch of Government, not in the Executive Branch of Government.

until obama came along. he is so busy rewriting it.

Actually, numerous presidents have chosen not to defend laws that they were of the opinion were unconstitutional including Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It is only now an "outrage" because of those suffering from ODS.

The presidential oath that is sworn contains language to the effect that the president will, to the best of their ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the laws of Congress. If a president comes to believe that one of the laws of the nation is unconstitutional, his oath would require the president to not only fail to defend such a law, but to actively seek its removal through the courts because the president's primary obligation is to the Constitution, not the laws which a previous Congress and president enacted.

When we get to the point where a president openly declares that they feel the "mandatory" spending items are also a violation of the Constitution and that challenges to them will not be defended by the administration, it is my hope that such actions will be also supported as proper even by those who might feel differently with regards to the constitutionality of the law enacted by a previous Congress and president.

I'm sorry Nmysys, but Obama's actions here are proper if he feels the law is unconstitutional. The Executive actions will not be what determines whether or not the law is or is not constitutional, that decision will still reside within the Judiciary. We all know that even with a rigorous defense that there are judges sitting on the federal benches who would rule for or against the constitutionality of the law solely on the basis of their political views and not the merits of the case. Conservative and progressive alike know that this reality exists and that specific cases are brought in specific districts because that reality exists. We know that justices are nominated to the Supreme Court because this reality exists. That is why FDR threatened to pack the court with justices who would uphold the constitutionality of his New Deal legislations regardless of whether they were constitutional or not when the Supreme Court kept overturning his efforts, whether they were constitutional or not. It is how we ended up with ruling from that august body that supported the constitutionality of such legislation as Social Security and how we ended up with such indefensible precepts as selective incorporation. It is why every president since Adams has sought to have judges seated that shared and would defend their political ideology before they left office.

Laws reflect the social landscape of their time, it is why what one legislature does can be undone by the ones that follow it. The current Congress could abolish Social Security or any of the other social welfare programs if they desired to do so because they were laws enacted by Congress and not part of the Constitution.

I might be of the opinion that he is choosing the coward's way out of a sticky political situation with this decision and is hoping that by letting the courts do the dirty work he can somehow keep his own and the party's hands clean for the 2012 elections, but I can't say that he is exceeding his authority or failing to properly shoulder his responsibility as president. Since the president is well aware that whenever the choice is left to the people themselves it is rejected, he is seeking a back door manner that his party's agenda can be forced, once more, upon the people. He learned last November that opposing their wishes directly has political consequences, and he is simply looking for a way to get back into the good graces of his radical base while at the same time avoiding direct responsibility for his actions in the hope that he can escape the political consequences that opposition to the will of people inevitably creates.

I, personally, think that the government has no business in the institution of marriage. Marriage from a governmental perspective is really nothing more than a voluntary legal contract between two consenting adults, and that is what the laws of the government should reflect. It is a civil contract between two people, nothing more, nothing less. Where it gets sticky is the spiritual aspect of it. The institution of marriage, from our earliest times as a species, has also had a spiritual connotation attached to it. My personal preference would be to have all levels of government stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone and issue documents of civil union instead. Leave the institution of marriage where it properly belongs, in the religious and spiritual institutions of the country.

Perversion should never be regulated by Federal government.

residenttroll wrote: Perversion should never be regulated by Federal government.

But bigotry should?