Washington (CNN)– President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the cons utionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and woman, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder.
Read More
I have absolutely no problem with the OUTCOME of this action, but I am pissed about the PROCESS. WTF, the executive branch carries out the law, it doesn't determine cons utionality. That is what the JUDICIAL branch is for. What precedent is there for this (admittedly there may be some and I am undereducated about it)?
Executive branch does this all the time and has for as long as I can remember. Part of being in charge of enforcement means you decide what to enforce etc.
IE DEA drug raids in states like CA where medicinal MJ is allowed. During Bush's tenure they kept the raids going while as soon as Obama took over he stopped them. That is still illegal according to federal guidelines but it doesn't make any sense to enforce those laws when the people don't want them.
"the executive branch carries out the law"
see "george w bush, signing statements", and that was to exempt his Exec from enforcing output of a REPUG Congress.
The exec has the power to selectively enforce the law -- see black panther case.
So let me get this straight, your argument is "well billy's mom let him do it"?
My guess is the outcome will squelch concerns about the process from not a few who were concerned about the process during the last administration. Nothing new, of course.
Or, Bush did it, so we do it.
Ok, I guess I am the only one here who found this to be bad. Mea Culpa
There are limited resources in the Justice Dept. There are things that are just not going to be prosecuted and the decisions will likely be made on political lines for obvious reasons. As long as nothing important is forsaken so be it.
A bad practice continues. Selective enforcement, signing statements, whatever are just another exec branch power grab.
Or see Bush going after consenting adults for making pornography.
Actually, I've got no problem with selective enforcement considering its imposilbe for them to prosecute everything on the books. This isn't a signing statement so I fail to see how its a "power grab".
Local DA's make these distinctions all the time. Its part of the judicial system whether its done at the federal or municipal level.
Not to mention in this specific case they're giving up because they have no grounds to keep going. They're not going to win appeals so giving up is the prudent thing to do and to save the taxpayer money.
I thought you were all about that, MB?
It's another form of the executive branch making the law rather than enforcing it. Problematic if you believe in the rule of law and all that bull , but I guess it doesn't involve a war or an elected Republican official so it's cool.
Are you saying I would oppose this had it been done by a GOP official?
Its "cool" because it makes sense. Thats why its "cool". Don't let reality get in the way of the whining, though.
So expecting the rule of law, rather than men, is "whining." Process is everything. Being content with deviations because of the ends ignores the entire form of American cons utional government.
A question MB, how would you have the gov't determine caseload? First in, first out? Is there a non-partisan way to go about picking which cases to prosecute?
Where is the deviation of the process? This IS the cons utional process. This IS the rule of law.
Its whining because you're lamenting for some ing Utopian system that isn't even necessarily better by any stretch of the imagination.
Unless I missed it where the government has to keep appealing in situations like this can you explain to me specifically what your problem is? Judges have ruled DOMA uncons utional but the administration accepting that is itself uncons utional?
ing rich.
So what's the way to do it other than, gee, we don't like this law so we won't enforce it? It is on the Congress to fund the enforcement thereof, of course.
Better for what you deem is an appropriate end. And if the cons utional process is about one thing, it is process.
Judges have also ruled last year's mammoth health law uncons utional, so the administration should accept that and not appeal it.Unless I missed it where the government has to keep appealing in situations like this can you explain to me specifically what your problem is? Judges have ruled DOMA uncons utional but the administration accepting that is itself uncons utional?
ing rich.
ing rich indeed.
Two separate cases. One judge has ruled against the US in that case. What about this case? Are they the exact same?
I'm sorry you don't want judgement being used but thats how any government will work which is what makes your Utopian dream one not even worth considering.
Enforcing the law requires judgement. You're really complaining about this?
You want an already bloated Justice Dept to be even more bloated? Really?
So enforcing the law means ignoring the law.
The Cons ution and related processes are ignored enough as it is, the last administration having provided quite a few examples. I guess it's too much to ask that our elected officials actually be held to a high standard.
I don't know of a good way. That's why I asked you.
Edit: I'm assuming, of course, that the DoJ doesn't have an unlimited budget/resources to prosecute each case that comes before it.
Just another example of barry doing what ever he wants. Less than 2 years left of this nonsense. You're right, it's the process. Let the s get married is my opinion but barry force feeding his fellow citizens is not the way to go about it.
Being practical means sometimes ignoring the law. This applies any any level of government. In an ideal world this would not be necessary but we don't and never will live in an ideal world.
Do you support raiding places in California selling medical marijuana? Simple yes or no.
The Cons ution and related processes are ignored enough as it is, the last administration having provided quite a few examples. I guess it's too much to ask that our elected officials actually be held to a high standard.
The cons ution is not being ignored. Its being followed completely. Which part is being ignored?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
