From same sex marriage to Polygamy

Ham Flower? wrote:Give them a chance to look through their chain emails and wacko websites and I'm sure they'll get back to you.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

nightlight88 wrote:

Ham Flower? wrote:Give them a chance to look through their chain emails and wacko websites and I'm sure they'll get back to you.

You mean whacko sites like DailyKos, MediaMatters, and HuffingtonPost?????

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

You mean this unilateral action by the MT suit HMWAIC?

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-will-no-longer-defend-doma/

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

You mean this unilateral action by the MT suit HMWAIC?

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-will-no-longer-defend-doma/

Hey, pssst....  He was actually found to be spot on in his assessment.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

You mean this unilateral action by the MT suit HMWAIC?

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-will-no-longer-defend-doma/

Hey, pssst....  He was actually found to be spot on in his assessment.

As of the date the MT suit HMWAIC decided to quit supporting the DOMA it was still valid and not even that MT suit had the authority to refuse to carry out the law of the land.  Do you have a citation giving that MT suit HMWAIC that authority to violate DOMA?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that enforcement of the policy will -- at least for now -- continue.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

You mean this unilateral action by the MT suit HMWAIC?

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-will-no-longer-defend-doma/

Hey, pssst....  He was actually found to be spot on in his assessment.

As of the date the MT suit HMWAIC decided to quit supporting the DOMA it was still valid and not even that MT suit had the authority to refuse to carry out the law of the land.  Do you have a citation giving that MT suit HMWAIC that authority to violate DOMA?

Did you even read the article you posted?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that enforcement of the policy will -- at least for now -- continue.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

You mean this unilateral action by the MT suit HMWAIC?

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-will-no-longer-defend-doma/

Hey, pssst....  He was actually found to be spot on in his assessment.

As of the date the MT suit HMWAIC decided to quit supporting the DOMA it was still valid and not even that MT suit had the authority to refuse to carry out the law of the land.  Do you have a citation giving that MT suit HMWAIC that authority to violate DOMA?

Did you even read the article you posted?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that enforcement of the policy will -- at least for now -- continue.

So big deal what Jay Carney said ... the question to you was did that MT suit HMWAIC have the authority in Feb 2011 to declare Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional prior to the time the US Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor Vs United States case, June 2013?  Please cite the  authority the MT suit HMWAIC had to make such declaration.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

You mean this unilateral action by the MT suit HMWAIC?

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-will-no-longer-defend-doma/

Hey, pssst....  He was actually found to be spot on in his assessment.

As of the date the MT suit HMWAIC decided to quit supporting the DOMA it was still valid and not even that MT suit had the authority to refuse to carry out the law of the land.  Do you have a citation giving that MT suit HMWAIC that authority to violate DOMA?

Did you even read the article you posted?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that enforcement of the policy will -- at least for now -- continue.

So big deal what Jay Carney said ... the question to you was did that MT suit HMWAIC have the authority in Feb 2011 to declare Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional prior to the time the US Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor Vs United States case, June 2013?  Please cite the  authority the MT suit HMWAIC had to make such declaration.

My gawd you are trying hard to skin this cat.  He can declare whatever he wants.  And no,  your "question to me" was what gave him the right to refuse to carry out the law of the land.  You can't move the goalposts just because you are retarded.  According to your article he never stopped enforcing it.  What seems to be the problem?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

Obviously DOMA was found to be unconstitutional, so in not supporting that he was certainly upholding the Constitution.  Is it the president's job to deal with local voting issues?  Which immigration laws?   With something the size the ACA, there are certainly going to need to be some fixes made along the way, especially right out of the gate.  If you have a problem with the constitutional aspect of the ACA patches  you should take that up with SCOTUS.  Good luck.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

Obviously DOMA was found to be unconstitutional, so in not supporting that he was certainly upholding the Constitution.  Is it the president's job to deal with local voting issues?  Which immigration laws?   With something the size the ACA, there are certainly going to need to be some fixes made along the way, especially right out of the gate.  If you have a problem with the constitutional aspect of the ACA patches  you should take that up with SCOTUS.  Good luck.

DOMA was only declared unconstitutional for Section 3 of the law. Oberfell v Hodges made the Full Faith and Credit section unenforceable. However under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution the President must exercise his power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The only time the President is justified in declaring a law unconstitutional is when the President vetoes a bill. Absent that he is violating the Separation of Powers principle that the Constitution is based on. Faithless execution of the laws is a failure to uphold the Constitution and constitutes an impeachable offense.

Certainly GOP leaders didn't overlook this critical information. How did the impeachment hearings go?

Certainly the President has to faithfully execute all Federal election laws concerning voter intimidation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594

Really? I didn't see in your post where it was the job of the federal government to step on a states toes in prosecuting voting law infractions. Someone should have mentioned that to Bush when a group calling themselves the Minutemen showed up at a polling station in '06 armed with cameras and guns. Certainly Obama should not have been so lenient, but the bar was not set too high.

Obama is using prosecutorial discretion on deportations of known undocumented illegal immigrants even to the point of refusing to deport known criminals. Obama has refused to act on deporting children who were brought into the country or entered the country illegally. He has sued states that have implemented tough immigration laws claiming immigration is a Federal responsibility but on the other hand has refused to act against sanctuary cities.   He has refused to let ICE take custody of illegals taken into custody by local authorities. He has dramatically reduced workplace raids. There are almost  too many to cite.

No doubt about it, this country is in dire need of consistent comprehensive immigration reform. I'm not holding my breath.

The power to change ACA does not reside with the Executive but with Congress. If the law requires that a mandate take place at a certain time, the President must execute the law as written. It is not in his prerogative or powers to do otherwise.

Again, I'm assuming the GOP was all over this. How did it turn out?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Defense of Marriage Act

What about it?

You wanted an example of laws not enforced by Obama. DOMA was just one. There is also voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, selective enforcement of immigration laws, twenty plus changes made to Obamacare e.g. the delay of the employer mandate.

You mean this unilateral action by the MT suit HMWAIC?

"The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-will-no-longer-defend-doma/

Hey, pssst....  He was actually found to be spot on in his assessment.

As of the date the MT suit HMWAIC decided to quit supporting the DOMA it was still valid and not even that MT suit had the authority to refuse to carry out the law of the land.  Do you have a citation giving that MT suit HMWAIC that authority to violate DOMA?

Did you even read the article you posted?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that enforcement of the policy will -- at least for now -- continue.

So big deal what Jay Carney said ... the question to you was did that MT suit HMWAIC have the authority in Feb 2011 to declare Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional prior to the time the US Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor Vs United States case, June 2013?  Please cite the  authority the MT suit HMWAIC had to make such declaration.

My gawd you are trying hard to skin this cat.  He can declare whatever he wants.  And no,  your "question to me" was what gave him the right to refuse to carry out the law of the land.  You can't move the goalposts just because you are retarded.  According to your article he never stopped enforcing it.  What seems to be the problem?

OK, let's back up and punt....

By what authority did the MT suit HMWAIC instruct the Justice Department to no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the legal prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages.?

By what authority did Attorney General Eric Holder state that the  department will stop defending the policy because it has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, "which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
The power to change ACA does not reside with the Executive but with Congress. If the law requires that a mandate take place at a certain time, the President must execute the law as written. It is not in his prerogative or powers to do otherwise.

Again, I'm  assuming the GOP was all over this.   How did it turn out?

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
The power to change ACA does not reside with the Executive but with Congress. If the law requires that a mandate take place at a certain time, the President must execute the law as written. It is not in his prerogative or powers to do otherwise.

Again, I'm  assuming the GOP was all over this.   How did it turn out?

What does the GOP being all over this or not being over all this have to do with it the FACT that Obama didn't enforce the law that is often given his name?

You know...the FACT that you requested?

Typical liberal attempt to point fingers in another direction.

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
The power to change ACA does not reside with the Executive but with Congress. If the law requires that a mandate take place at a certain time, the President must execute the law as written. It is not in his prerogative or powers to do otherwise.

Again, I'm  assuming the GOP was all over this.   How did it turn out?

What does the GOP being all over this or not being over all this have to do with it the FACT that Obama didn't enforce the law that is often given his name?

You know...the FACT that you requested?

Typical liberal attempt to point fingers in another direction.

It was in place and being enforced last time I checked.

Dr. Jones wrote:
It's called Executive Disregard.  

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
The power to change ACA does not reside with the Executive but with Congress. If the law requires that a mandate take place at a certain time, the President must execute the law as written. It is not in his prerogative or powers to do otherwise.

Again, I'm  assuming the GOP was all over this.   How did it turn out?

What does the GOP being all over this or not being over all this have to do with it the FACT that Obama didn't enforce the law that is often given his name?

You know...the FACT that you requested?

Typical liberal attempt to point fingers in another direction.

It was in place and being enforced last time I checked.

Keep playing stupid.

You wear it well.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:        
It's called Executive Disregard.  

That means we can begin to disregard any and all laws thought to be worthless/asinine/unenforceable/unconstitutional, COOL !

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
The power to change ACA does not reside with the Executive but with Congress. If the law requires that a mandate take place at a certain time, the President must execute the law as written. It is not in his prerogative or powers to do otherwise.

Again, I'm  assuming the GOP was all over this.   How did it turn out?

What does the GOP being all over this or not being over all this have to do with it the FACT that Obama didn't enforce the law that is often given his name?

You know...the FACT that you requested?

Typical liberal attempt to point fingers in another direction.

It was in place and being enforced last time I checked.

Keep playing stupid.

You wear it well.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

President Obama has made close to 20 changes by now in his own Obamacare law passed exclusively by his own Democrats in Congress. He has done that by decree, without any authorization in the law, and in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, which means the laws as passed by Congress, and as he himself has signed into law.

The law as passed mandates both employers and workers to buy health insurance (workers when their employers don’t). The law as enacted says those mandates both become effective as of January 1, 2014.

But last year, President Obama decreed that the employer mandate, but not the worker mandate, would be delayed by one year. Then last week, he rewrote the employer mandate again. The employer mandate as enacted into law requires all businesses with 50 or more full time employees, defined as those working 30 hours a week or more, to buy the statutorily defined health insurance coverage for those workers.

The Constitution provides that Congress has the legislative power to write the laws. The President has the power to either veto them or sign them. But once he signs them, those laws become the “law of the land,” as Obama himself has also famously said regarding Obamacare. Those laws then apply to the President just as much as to everyone else. In America, unlike in Third World banana republics, the President is not above the law.

For the President to rewrite the law as passed by Congress, rather than faithfully executing it, is consequently a violation of the Constitution, and the law.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
The power to change ACA does not reside with the Executive but with Congress. If the law requires that a mandate take place at a certain time, the President must execute the law as written. It is not in his prerogative or powers to do otherwise.

Again, I'm  assuming the GOP was all over this.   How did it turn out?

What does the GOP being all over this or not being over all this have to do with it the FACT that Obama didn't enforce the law that is often given his name?

You know...the FACT that you requested?

Typical liberal attempt to point fingers in another direction.

It was in place and being enforced last time I checked.

Keep playing stupid.

You wear it well.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/21/americas-constitutional-crisis/

President Obama has made close to 20 changes by now in his own Obamacare law passed exclusively by his own Democrats in Congress. He has done that by decree, without any authorization in the law, and in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, which means the laws as passed by Congress, and as he himself has signed into law.

The law as passed mandates both employers and workers to buy health insurance (workers when their employers don’t). The law as enacted says those mandates both become effective as of January 1, 2014.

But last year, President Obama decreed that the employer mandate, but not the worker mandate, would be delayed by one year. Then last week, he rewrote the employer mandate again. The employer mandate as enacted into law requires all businesses with 50 or more full time employees, defined as those working 30 hours a week or more, to buy the statutorily defined health insurance coverage for those workers.

The Constitution provides that Congress has the legislative power to write the laws. The President has the power to either veto them or sign them. But once he signs them, those laws become the “law of the land,” as Obama himself has also famously said regarding Obamacare. Those laws then apply to the President just as much as to everyone else. In America, unlike in Third World banana republics, the President is not above the law.

For the President to rewrite the law as passed by Congress, rather than faithfully executing it, is consequently a violation of the Constitution, and the law.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:        
It's called Executive Disregard.  

That means we can begin to disregard any and all laws thought to be worthless/asinine/unenforceable/unconstitutional, COOL !

You're a moron.  

The POTUS is swarn to uphold the Constitution.   Therfore  he is obligated to bring into question statutes that he deems to be unconstitutional.  Obama was well within his rights to contest the DOMA, especially considering a judge ruled it unconstitutional.  He was only doing his job,  and doing it well.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:        
It's called Executive Disregard.  

That means we can begin to disregard any and all laws thought to be worthless/asinine/unenforceable/unconstitutional, COOL !

You're a moron.  

The POTUS is swarn to uphold the Constitution.   Therfore  he is obligated to bring into question statutes that he deems to be unconstitutional.  Obama was well within his rights to contest the DOMA, especially considering a judge ruled it unconstitutional.  He was only doing his job,  and doing it well.

Your beloved MT suit HMWAIC stopped defending DOMA in 2011, the case wasn't decided until 2013 so to not enforce a legal statute he was in violation of the the oath of office.

Bullshit

Oc course all you homos cheer his action, right Jonsey???

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:        
It's called Executive Disregard.  

That means we can begin to disregard any and all laws thought to be worthless/asinine/unenforceable/unconstitutional, COOL !

You're a moron.  

The POTUS is swarn to uphold the Constitution.   Therfore  he is obligated to bring into question statutes that he deems to be unconstitutional.  Obama was well within his rights to contest the DOMA, especially considering a judge ruled it unconstitutional.  He was only doing his job,  and doing it well.

Your beloved MT suit HMWAIC stopped defending DOMA in 2011, the case wasn't decided until 2013 so to not enforce a legal statute he was in violation of the the oath of office.

Bullshit

Oc course all you homos cheer his action, right Jonsey???

What's Oc?  Can't you spell?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Maybe this article will help clear your mind of the lies propogated by the right on the issue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/