Question for Libertarianistas

What other laws do you believe that the POTUS has the right to arbitrarily not enforce?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How can the President "....... defend the Constitution" by implementing
law(s) he believe violate the Constitution?

ziggy wrote:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How can the President "....... defend the Constitution" by implementing
law(s) he believe violate the Constitution?

He supported DOMA when he ran for the Presidency. It is not his place to make laws or selectively defend laws. It is his place to defend the laws made by Congress. It is not his place to interpret the laws or to determine the constitutionality of laws made by Congress--that is the Supreme Court's role.

The Supreme Court needs to decide, but why should the President, or any other politician who doesn't believe DOMA constitutional spend time and resources defending it? There are 50 states with AGs. Let one of them bring it to SCOTUS. Let them argue it.

Stephanie wrote:The Supreme Court needs to decide, but why should the President, or any other politician who doesn't believe DOMA constitutional spend time and resources defending it? There are 50 states with AGs. Let one of them bring it to SCOTUS. Let them argue it.

Why? Obamessiah has made it moot.

Obamessiah has made it moot.

No, it is not moot. He has similarly declined to enforce our immigration laws and defend our borders. So, too, did George W. Bush. I cannot prevent his second term. If only I could! Obama's DOJ has declined to prosecute voter intimidation laws. He should be challenged at every turn and at every level. Not because we disagree with him but because his failures set dangerous precedents.

We are a nation of laws of which nobody is suppose to be above. There is a way to resolve the issue of laws that should be removed and it isn't to ignore them or cease to enforce them. It is to revoke them of to change them in the way prescribed by the US Constitution, or in many cases the State Constitutions. Simply if you don't like the law change it or revoke it, but do that by the law.

Cato

Cato wrote:We are a nation of laws of which nobody is suppose to be above. There is a way to resolve the issue of laws that should be removed and it isn't to ignore them or cease to enforce them. It is to revoke them of to change them in the way prescribed by the US Constitution, or in many cases the State Constitutions. Simply if you don't like the law change it or revoke it, but do that by the law.

Cato

Except the law he is decling to enforce was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge so as it stands it should be removed from the books.

But O is selective in his constitutional duties. A federal judge has also struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional. Yet he continues his implementation unabated.

It is my understanding (and I'm a little unclear) that if O finds a law passed by a previous Congress unconstitutional his oath requires him to ask the current Congress to revoke it. Failing that, he can decline to enforce it. Yes, the courts have the authority to force him to enforce the laws but they do not review them in the absence of a case. An interested party has to go to court and seek a writ of mandamus.

There is some extra-constitutional wrangling going on where DOJ has agreed to invite the House to defend the law in court.

Aaron wrote:

Except the law he is decling to enforce was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge so as it stands it should be removed from the books.

Since I have more important things to do, I don't follow homo issues. I didn't realize it was declared unconstitutional. If that is the case then remove it from the books and end all this stupid hub bub.

I would be interested to know on what grounds the law was found unconstitutional. Was it because because the judgie like his/her own sex or was it because of an agenda they have or was it for a more ledgitimate reason like the Federal Government has no business or authority in the bedroom of concenting adults.

ohio county wrote:But O is selective in his constitutional duties. A federal judge has also struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional. Yet he continues his implementation unabated.

It is my understanding (and I'm a little unclear) that if O finds a law passed by a previous Congress unconstitutional his oath requires him to ask the current Congress to revoke it. Failing that, he can decline to enforce it. Yes, the courts have the authority to force him to enforce the laws but they do not review them in the absence of a case. An interested party has to go to court and seek a writ of mandamus.

There is some extra-constitutional wrangling going on where DOJ has agreed to invite the House to defend the law in court.

You raise a really good issue. Obama like many before him seem to pick and choose what laws they'll defend and what they will ignore. I really don't believe the founders had this quite in mind when they established this republic.

ohio county wrote: A federal judge has also struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional. Yet he continues his implementation unabated.

Why is there not a Federal Judge taking part in all Congressional and State Legislative "Bill passing".

That way the Federal Judge could declare the proposed Bill to be unconstitutional before they waste their time voting on it's passage.

Why is there not a Federal Judge taking part in all Congressional and State Legislative "Bill passing".

I'm only guessing but the Constitution was written in simple language not the dense legalese that tends to obscure the meaning. It was worded almost exclusively by Governour Morris. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention made their suggestions, debated them, and passed their resolutions. Morris then wrote them up in accordance with their wishes.

What I'm trying to say is that each branch is equal. The legislative and executive officers all take an oath to protect and serve the Constitution. Because those officers might not be lawyers Morris kept the language simple and easily understandable. That, sadly, has not kept clever lawyers from subsequently obscuring the meanings and calling for new interpretations. I think they wanted to keep the judicial branch from having an up-front veto power. That's just me...

Like the President I've never published any constitutional scholarship. Unlike the President I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar.

ohio county wrote: I'm only guessing but the Constitution was written in simple language not the dense legalese that tends to obscure the meaning. It was worded almost exclusively by Governour Morris. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention made their suggestions, debated them, and passed their resolutions. Morris then wrote them up in accordance with their wishes.

What I'm trying to say is that each branch is equal. The legislative and executive officers all take an oath to protect and serve the Constitution. Because those officers might not be lawyers Morris kept the language simple and easily understandable. That, sadly, has not kept clever lawyers from subsequently obscuring the meanings and calling for new interpretations. I think they wanted to keep the judicial branch from having an up-front veto power. That's just me...

Sadly people have learned that they can manipulate law by who they elect. Both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty. That is why you see the fights you see when a federal judge or supreme court judge is appointed. I know, I'm guilty of such thinking.

The law, all law, should be just as Morris wrote it, simple and easily understandable. I'm a simple person, just ask Aaron or Stephanie or Ziggy. Doesn't it make sense that I or anyone else for that matter should be able to understand the law without the need of hiring an attorney to interpret it. Additionally, judges should be chosen based on their ability to remain true to the law as originally intended, instead of being able to twist the law to meet their agenda.

ohio county wrote:Like the President I've never published any constitutional scholarship. Unlike the President I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar.

Common shale has a better understanding of the Constitution than our present excuse for a president.

ohio county wrote:But O is selective in his constitutional duties. A federal judge has also struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional. Yet he continues his implementation unabated.

It is my understanding (and I'm a little unclear) that if O finds a law passed by a previous Congress unconstitutional his oath requires him to ask the current Congress to revoke it. Failing that, he can decline to enforce it. Yes, the courts have the authority to force him to enforce the laws but they do not review them in the absence of a case. An interested party has to go to court and seek a writ of mandamus.

There is some extra-constitutional wrangling going on where DOJ has agreed to invite the House to defend the law in court.

I don't disagree about President Obama OC but the one difference between DOMA and the healthcare law is that he is continuing to appeal that decision as is his choice. That's fine. It will lead to his demise. After listening to some of the comments coming out of Saturday's rally at the capitol, watching Chris Christie Sunday on Face the Nation and looking at the results of last years election, I'm convinced this issue, DOMA is just one more nail in his coffin. While I have no problem with it being revoked, many Americans will.

I am convinced that Obama will be re-elected.

The Obama Administration has allowed a permit by Noble Energies to resume drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana in 6,500 feet of water. An administration spokesman avers that it was not because of a ruling by a Federal Judge. In fact, he said, the Administration was preparing a response to that judge's ruling.

I liked this response: Common shale has a better understanding of the Constitution than our present excuse for a president.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12604560

...the one difference between DOMA and the healthcare law is that he is continuing to appeal that decision as is his choice...

His subsequent statements seem to indicate he is keeping score. When his side has an advantage I predict he will take his ball and go home.

I'm not sure what you mean OC.