Our lawless POTUS has done it once again. He has taken it upon himself to declare that he won’t allow his Justice Dept. to enforce one of our nations law, much like he does with illegal aliens. The Defense of Marriage Act passed under the Clinton administration has been a very controversial one, particularly with the same-sex marriage crowd. Obama has decided that he is above the lawmakers of our nation and taken it upon himself to declare the law unconstitutional and he won’t enforce it.

This is beyond outrageous. However, not at all unexpected as Obama has exhibited a track record for molding the nation’s laws toward his agenda. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the same-sex marriage argument. This has to do with a sitting President by decree deciding which laws to enforce. Anyone that believes we are a nation of laws and the rule of law should be outraged. Obama would be well with-in his rights to declare his support for same-sex marriage if he so chooses. However, to use the power of his office to intentionally fail to enforce a law on the books is indefensible.

What he should do is work to get the law off the books. The proper way. Through the legislative process. But as we’ve seen with the Wisconsin labor standoff, the democrats won’t allow silly little things like laws to get in the way of advancing their agenda.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Obama declares the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

  1. I agree that DOMA is unconstitutional, but primarily because it is an infringement on the states’ exclusive rights in the arena of family and marital rights. As a libertarian I don’t like the law at all.

    The problem is, as you have suggested, who is the final arbiter of constitutional disputes? The SC has declared itself to be so, and that conclusion, whatever you may make of it, has been accepted for over 200 years. It is one thing for a president to veto a law on constitutional laws. It is another to stop enforcing one for the same reason.

    There is a dangerous lawlessness brewing. Legislators in Wisconsin refuse to show up because they don’t like a bill, but are expected to lose. The president stops enforcing a law because he doesn’t like it. Will he be so kind if the next president halts implementation of ObamaCare because he/she thinks it is unconstitutional? Good lord, that’s anarchy.

    The president is setting a trap, as he often does. He wants Republicans to come out and challenge him on the issue. He will skilfully avoid the larger issue of constitutional chaos and focus on the “human” element of the issue. Republicans will get smeared, and walloped in the next election. Then, suddenly, respect for the rule of law will magically reappear.

    Again, I dislike DOMA on a number of grounds, and had Obama been in Clinton’s shoes and vetoed it on constitutional grounds, that would be one thing. But to stop enforcing laws because he doesn’t like them is quite another. Elections will degrade into a “which-laws-will-you-enforce-and-which-ones-won’t you quagmire.

  2. Ummm…so the rule of law no longer matters. We all can now pick and choose the laws we want to follow in the country. Way to set the example Mr. President. Way to take a chunk out of our legal system.

  3. Man, this is so frustrating. As Country Thinker has already said, agree or disagree with the DOMA, it really doesn’t matter. It is the law of the land and once again, President Obama is choosing to follow his own path. He has declared the law to be unconstitutional? Who died and made him the boss on that one? I thought it was up to the courts to decide, not the President. One has to wonder how long this can continue.

  4. They’re making a distinction between “defending” and “enforcing.” The first line of DOJ’s mission statement is: “To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law.” Liberals are making an indefensible distinction.

    They’re also saying that the DOJ lacks the resources to defend it. I guess we need to spend more money!

    Again, I don’t like DOMA at all, but I think it sets an awful precedent, much like the senators from WI and IN who have fled to IL. Don’t like a bill? Don’t vote, hide!

    I am absoultely frightened at the level of disarray in our politics these days.

  5. LD, if you recall my piece on the necessity of reliable rule of law for economic growth, this kind of behavior has implications that go beyond the sphere of politics. Who on earth would want to start a company in this country right now?

  6. It really seems to be out in the open more than ever these days. Just arrogance in disrespecting the rule of law. One would think it will eventually come back to bite them.

  7. I have to agree. The Federal Government really has no place in this. I must have been reading too many Libertarian blogs. 😀

    I also have to agree that the executive branch isn’t the place for these decisions to be made. The law would have been struck down by the first lib judge that heard a case on it anyway. Might be administration be trying to court the gays? YES!!

  8. agree or disagree with the DOMA, it really doesn’t matter.

    Exactly. Obama is picking and choosing which laws to follow and enforce. Federal judges have ruled that Obama’s ‘moritorium’ on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is illegal, Obama ignores it.

    The DOMA is law of the land, and Obama doesn’t like it. No big deal , Obama and his crew will simply ignore it.

  9. In addition to the destructive economic effects from declining rule of law, there are harmful social effects as well. “If the president doesn’t follow the law, why should I?” This can show up among supporters who thake their cues from Obama, as well as opponents.

    It’s an ends-justify-the-means philosophy. If we all pursue our ends without regards to any common rules of the road, this is going to turn into a crazy place.

  10. its unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment and that is why obama dosnt want to stand it if its unconstitutional it is illegal

Comments are now closed.