Obama says DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court

[Restrat]

For one thing, they said "It's unconstitutional for x, y, and z, reasons, according to these supreme court cases, which occurred after DOMA," which is generally when this type of thing occurs, not "I don't like this!"

Some examples:

Bush
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/...ring-marijuana
"The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."

Clinton
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/19...5525.resp.html
"Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."

Reagan
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...2_0919_ZS.html
"Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional."

edit:
Actually in those cases the government sometimes went further and argued for the OTHER side, here they are just saying they will let congress argue the case and stay out of it

[Mistress Stowastiq]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...?ref=fb&src=sp



tl;dr Obama tells DoJ to stop defending the defense of marriage act.

about damn time.


*thanks to Ksandra for editing in the article

This is good news

[Kuya]

Soon, i'll be able to marry dudes and destroy the foundations of society and troll further than ever before.

[Tonko]

Can I marry the Australian Rugby team?

[Niiro]

Can I marry the Australian Rugby team?

Gay marriage is bad enough but now gay polygamy?

Next thing you know you'll be havin your gay sex orgies in public parks an' libraries gettin pregnant and having communist healthcare funded abortions one after another.

Spoiler: show

oh and also they're Australian so something about illegal aliens and anchor babies

Spoiler: show

what were we talking about again?

[kuronosan]

That reminds me of the segment I saw on the Daily Show where he showed Michelle Bachmann making comments about how abortion clinics are now in shopping malls. "They're doing their shopping, grabbing their Starbucks, and then stopping by for an abortion".

Stupid people will always do or say stupid shit. So Obama is willing to take a few steps forward. Who gives a fuck what his motivation is?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I suppose a Repub President could also just step in and say the DOJ isn't going to defend Roe v. Wade anymore either.

[Alarial]

Totally the same thing.

[Valisk]

I suppose a Repub President could also just step in and say the DOJ isn't going to defend Roe v. Wade anymore either.

It's different because Roe v. Wade is affirming while this is saying it will not defend DOMA as constitutional. DoJ doesn't defend against abortion but it previously defended against same sex marriage using DOMA as it's legal backing.

[Surealistic]

because republicans have long track record of reasonable decisions right?

[Restrat]

is it even possible to sue a supreme court decision?

[Atreides]

has anyone read any analysis about how the justices would actually vote if Prop 8 made its way to the supreme court? I assume it'd be like everything else, with Ginsburg/Kagan/Sotomayor/Breyer voting to get rid of Prop 8 and Roberts/Alito/Thomas/Scalia voting to uphold it, with Kennedy being the deciding vote.

[Demosthenes11]

I suppose a Repub President could also just step in and say the DOJ isn't going to defend Roe v. Wade anymore either.

how in fucks name are you studying to be a lawyer

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

how in fucks name are you studying to be a lawyer

Are there no federal statutes related to abortion? I feel like there are. If not, if there was one, a President could still just do this.

[Valisk]

how in fucks name are you studying to be a lawyer

Give him a break. He's a first year. (I think)

Are there no federal statutes related to abortion? I feel like there are. If not, if there was one, a President could still just do this.

I just think you have your syntax mixed up. There are no Federal statutes in which the government uses as grounds to why you can't get an abortion.

If there was an act (we'll call it DOUBA for simplicity) that defines abortion (politically, when life begins, etc) and the government used the act as precedence to deny abortions, then theoretically a president could say the DOUBA is uncostitutional and that the DOJ can't use it for grounds to stand on. But that's not the case.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Give him a break. He's a first year. (I think)

I just think you have your syntax mixed up. There are no Federal statutes in which the government uses as grounds to why you can't get an abortion.

If there was an act (we'll call it DOUBA for simplicity)that defines abortion (politically, when life begins, etc) and the government used the act as precedence to deny abortions, then theoretically a president could say the DOUBA is uncostitutional and that the DOJ can't use it for grounds to stand on. But that's not the case.

1.5 year.

Ok, that clears it up.

[Qeomash]

If you're wondering about why a President can stop enforcing unconstitutional laws: Article

PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES

This memorandum discusses the President's constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.

November 2, 1994

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE ABNER J. MIKVA
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

I have reflected further on the difficult questions surrounding a President's decision to decline to execute statutory provisions that the President believes are unconstitutional, and I have a few thoughts to share with you. Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.

First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).

[Talint]

Newt Gingrinch dances around saying that Obama should be impeached for DOMA actions.

Asked directly whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty. Clearly it’s a violation of his constitutional oath. Clearly it is not something that can be allowed to stand."

I have no respect for the republican party anymore. I'm giving up trying to be reasonable and rational with republicans.

[Apelila]

Newt Gingrinch dances around saying that Obama should be impeached for DOMA actions.



I have no respect for the republican party anymore. I'm giving up trying to be reasonable and rational with republicans.

It's perfectly possible to be rational with republicans. I do it all the time at family fucntions. Its much harder to be rational with a person who refuses to listen, conceed a point, or even admit they're wrong however.

[Drex]

Newt Gingrinch dances around saying that Obama should be impeached for DOMA actions.



I have no respect for the republican party anymore. I'm giving up trying to be reasonable and rational with republicans.

trolled hard