Obama Administration's Shift on DoMA

[Wezil]

There is nothing illegal about it. However, don't you think it’s ethically preposterous to claim DOMA is unconstitutional yet continue enforcing it?

Personally, I think the POTUS should enforce all laws except those actively being repealed.

I also think elected legislatures should vote up or down on the legislation before them.

My position is consistent.


I used the position above to point out the absurdity of gribbler's argument in the other thread (the rules don't say they can't flee the State therefore it is acceptable).

edit - I should have said "gribbler and others". gribbler is a nice guy and I don't want to appear to be picking on him exclusively.

[giblets]

Show me in the Constitution where the President is precluded from this action.

You have no leg to stand on in this argument gribbler after shooting your credibility in the other thread.

No matter how many times you try to compare this to stalling legislation, it won't stop being stupid.

[Wezil]

Nice rebuttal.

[giblets]

I used the position above to point out the absurdity of gribbler's argument in the other thread (the rules don't say they can't flee the State therefore it is acceptable).

yes, I do think it's legal for a member of a state legislature to go out of state. I don't see why I can't also object to the president theoretically being able to make any law null and void.

[giblets]

I guess you could make it illegal for a wisconsin state senator to leave the state, if you really think being able to stall legislation makes the legislature too powerful.

[Wezil]

I find those two positions to be in contradiction. If it's just me so be it although I suspect I'm not alone.

Btw, it;s not just the POTUS that ignores laws. Think about it next time you pass a cop in excess of the speed limit (and don't get ticketed).

[Wezil]

I guess you could make it illegal for a wisconsin state senator to leave the state, if you really think being able to stall legislation makes the legislature too powerful.

How would you propose they do that without a quorum?

[giblets]

I find those two positions to be in contradiction. If it's just me so be it although I suspect I'm not alone.

Btw, it;s not just the POTUS that ignores laws. Think about it next time you pass a cop in excess of the speed limit (and don't get ticketed).

Why would I drive above the speed limit?

[giblets]

How would you propose they do that without a quorum?

I said you, in a hypothetical sense. Not they, in a practical sense. Do you think it should be illegal for someone to cross state lines?

[giblets]

I think
1. It shouldn't be illegal to cross state lines.
2. The president shouldn't be able to effectively veto any piece of legislation, by saying it won't be enforced
Contradiction?

[SpencerH]

It seems reasonable that either POTUS or congress could have a finding that a particular law was unconstitutional since they are co-equal with the courts. The supremes, however, are the final arbiters of "constitutionality" so I think that if a law is believed to be unconstitional by POTUS or congress then they have a responsibility to test that proposition by bringing a case before SCOTUS (and the supremes have a responsibility to take the case).

[Wezil]

I said you, in a hypothetical sense. Not they, in a practical sense. Do you think it should be illegal for someone to cross state lines?

I have no need for such a rule. I am King of my household.

We're talking about WI.


Of course it shouldn't be illegal to cross State lines but to do so to avoid fulfilling your elected duties should be an presumed abdication of your position.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It seems reasonable that either POTUS or congress could have a finding that a particular law was unconstitutional since they are co-equal with the courts. The supremes, however, are the final arbiters of "constitutionality" so I think that if a law is believed to be unconstitional by POTUS or congress then they have a responsibility to test that proposition by bringing a case before SCOTUS (and the supremes have a responsibility to take the case).

Only because SCOTUS deemed itself final arbiter. In reality both legislative and executive branches take oaths to uphold the constitution. The constitution is silent on whose role it is to provide final interpretation.

[Dinner]

Cool, I didn't know the president could eliminate a law by refusing to enforce it.

He actually said that he will continue to enforce it but that if the courts strike it down, which seems likely, he will not appeal the decision.

[SpencerH]

Only because SCOTUS deemed itself final arbiter. In reality both legislative and executive branches take oaths to uphold the constitution. The constitution is silent on whose role it is to provide final interpretation.

All true, but it doesnt change the current reality i.e. that SCOTUS decides. The idea that the POTUS can unilaterally decide that a law is unconstitutional is a dangerous precedent IMO. The President is not a King.