Posted on 02/23/2011 12:35:28 PM PST by Bridgetteb
Obama and Eric Holder Take Legislation into Their Own Hands and Circumvent Congress!
Attorney General Holder Will Not Uphold the Laws in our Country!
Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:
and so, what other laws will obama and holder decide not to enforce? Since now it is pick-and-choose time
Only a judge can they cannot.
a) generate more campaign contributions & energize his base, and
b) any that might distract the population from the utter and complete FAILURE of nearly every other Obama policy.
These clowns run only two or three plays in their playbook. You'd think the GOP would know how to defend by now.
Thomas Jefferson would agree with this philosophy.
I think the timing here is curious. Is might be an attempt to distract from the absolute failures in the responses to Tunisia, Egypt, Iran and Wisconsin in the last couple weeks. Create a diversion discuss it, then say never mind.
Obama chooses to ignore Articles I and III when he ignores court rulings on the oil drilling moratorium and the unconstitutionality of Obama care.
Obama chooses to ignore Article IV when he becomes personally involved in overthrowing the Republican Form of Government in Wisconsin.
I'm thinking about ignoring Article II when I stop thinking of Obama as President.
-PJ
Lawless bastards.
Oh yeah. A follow-up. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my uneducated (non-lawyer) of the law suggests that the Pres and the DOJ can’t declare something unconstitutional. It has to pass Congress or go through a ruling in a court.
Is this understanding correct?
What is happening in our country that elected officials can pick and choose when they want to vote on a bill or run away; that our president and his minions can pick and choose which judgments or laws they want to obey. I feel so helpless.
Conservatives do not want the government regulating the use of their private parts.
Legally you are probably correct. I agree this is a distraction from the union situation and the Muslim takeover going on in the middle east. But... where is the out cry? If Obama steals our constitution and flushes it down the toilet.. where is the congress? Do they really believe this man will be president forever? When the next guy comes in and says I don’t like laws AB and C so I personally will not follow them do the congressional sheep just nod their heads and go on MSNBC and Shep Smith and say .. aww he’s right? Wake up people.
The OBAMA REGIME = RULE OF UTTER LAWLESSNESS
[ There should be no government involvement nor any recognition of a religious ritual. Civil ceremonies were the creation of royalists, statists and religious fascists to control the sexual activity of others.
Conservatives do not want the government regulating the use of their private parts. ]
Many things the government touches don’t turn out very well...
Though I think that because Marrige can be seen as a “contract” there have to be standards to who can enter into such a contract. Standards such as making sure the peopl entering into a binding contract are old enough and of sound mind among others.
I am of the whole mindset that the government needs to get out of the way of the American people. However there needs to be standards, if the the government gets out of the way of Marrige, they cannot force churches to marry people they don’t want to either.
It is a complex issue to be sure.
I’m still waiting for some group to start going Egypt on the A$$hole of a president.
I am no longer going to hold my tongue when discussing his wife’s fat bottom!
I thought constitutionality was to be decided by the Supreme Court. I guess Zero is saying, “Not in my administration”.
Only the Supremes, the ones without Diana Ross, can “declare” constitutionality. Of course, Congress is supposed to craft legislation to meet the requirements of constitutionality, but it cannot pass judgment on its own enactments.
Similarly, the executive branch cannot make any binding rulings of constitutionality, but can elect to take positions for or against constitutionality in making policy or in deciding litigation strategy. Presumably, they are to fashion those decisions based on the existing constitutional law as established by the courts.
While the effect of executive decisions impacts the constitutional rights of citizens, a citizen can challenge the executive action in court and the court can strike down or declare that action unconstitutional and restrain the government’s unconstitutional actions. Take for example, oh, I don’t know, Obamacare. Oh, yeah, Obama and Holder are ignoring that court ruling... hmmmmm... lawless government anyone? c.f. Mark Levin.
We redefined “natural born citizen”.
We redefined “marriage”.
We redefined “the judiciary”.
What’s next?
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.