Posted on 06/27/2013 3:26:51 AM PDT by swampthang77
After a controversial decision by the US Supreme Court today invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was passed by elected members of the United States Congress in 1996, President Barack Obama promised that he would continue to allow religious institutions to enjoy protections by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits Congress from creating a “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It is not clear why President Obama felt it was necessary to clarify that he would not encourage an attack on the first amendment, although critics note that his administration has recently faced increasing disapproval due to numerous scandals, from Benghazi, Fast and Furious, NSA surveillance revaluations, and abuses in the IRS, many critics are beginning to see signs of a pattern of abuses far greater than the Watergate scandal which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon....
(Excerpt) Read more at usbcnews.com ...
“....Obama adds “when pigs fly””..........
Now THAT statement is more truthfull. Odumbo has gone around the constitution soooooooooo many times, its like he’s on a permanent merry-go-round. What a lying S.O.B. he is.
However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” United States v. O’Brien , 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968). Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.
(snip)
The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence , 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
Frankly, I don't think Obama will need to do a blasted thing...other than to file a ton of amicus briefs. The courts will do his dirty work for him.
In Obama’s own words, the Constitution is a flawed document containing only negative liberties.
He must mean some other countries constitution.....because he damn sure doesn’t respect our consitution.....
Obama respects the koran and the Communist manifesto.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Not doing so is a clear cause for action, namely removal from office via impeachment.
[When pigs fly.]
He hasn’t done that ever....so anything he says on that subject is a lie.
It’s just part of the “more flexibility” thing.
He also told his media that he was not a Bolshevik.
And discussed his muslim er wait, his Christian faith.
What?! And break the habit of a lifetime?
First time I have seen the Scalia dissent.
The only relief we might be able to take is that this was a 5-4 decision...IF we can replace one of the liberals.....
Read the whole thing. Starts on page 35 of the linked PDF. It is a really good read...scathing.
The only relief we might be able to take is that this was a 5-4 decision...IF we can replace one of the liberals.....
Remember, Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.
Oh, I remember the Kennedy saga....He was Reagan’s third choice.
Is any more proof needed that we have become a dictatorship? Do we need to be locked up before we acknowledge the truth? Do you really believe 2016 will be the end of Elmer Fudd?Dictators don’t step down voluntarily.
And for all the NSA trools, FU!
Of course Obama will not actually keep his word.
But just the fact there is enough pressure to finally make it necessary for him to specifically state he will respect constitutional freedoms and restraints in this one instance shows how far we have fallen.
It shows that for Obama, for the media, and for his suporters, there is no expectation that Obama will honor his oath of office or the constitution as a natural course of events.
If a republican president had ever made a statement similar to this or acted in a similar manner the Obama-media would have gone into convulsions.
“President Barack Obama promised that [b][i][u]he would continue to allow[/b][/i][/u] religious institutions to enjoy protections by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution...”
Who died and made this arrogant bastard God? It’s not up to him to allow or disallow “inalienable rights.”
FUBO!
“Obama Promises to Respect Constitution”
Is that before or after he was sworn into office twice? If his fat lips are moving, then we know he’s lyin’.
"As I have observed before, the Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms. See Lawrence v. Texas. I will not swell the U. S. Reports with restatements of that point. It is enough to say that the Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol."
"However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation."
"Their existence ought to be the end of this case."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.