Aa
So much for the debt ceiling! House GOP raises budget to defend DOMA
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/15/so-much-for-the-debt-ceiling-house-gop-raises-budget-to-defend-doma/
House Republicans, who have repeatedly threatened to not raise the debt ceiling, quietly raised their budgetary allowance to defend the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.
In a newly revised legal contract obtained by The Huffington Post, the House of Representatives and its law firm, Bancroft LLC, signed on to raise the spending ceiling up to $3 million. A key section reads: “It is further understood and agreed that, effective January 4, 2013, the aforementioned $2.75 million cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding, $3 million upon written notice of the General Contractor specifying that the General Counsel is legally liable.”
This language was inserted into the governing rules package adopted by the 113th Congress, which in effect authorizes the House legal team to pay outside counsel to defend the federal ban on marriage equality in court.
On Tuesday, Democratic leaders in the House sent a formal complaint letter to Republican House Speaker John Boehner, calling it “the height of hypocrisy” for the GOP “to waste public funds in one breath then claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in the next.”
“We wish to strongly reaffirm our objections to the repeated actions by the Republican leadership to secretly and dramatically increase the contract between the House and outside counsel in arguing to uphold the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in more than a dozen cases,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer wrote in a joint letter. ”With Republicans willing to take our economy and our country to the brink of default in the name of deficit reduction, there is simply no excuse for any Member of Congress to commit taxpayer dollars to an unnecessary–and futile–legal battle.”
Pelosi and Hoyer requested more information on the total cost of this case and stressed the pointlessness of the GOP’s actions. “We believe it is only a matter of time before this offensive law is a discarded relic of a bygone era,” they wrote.
In the spring of 2011, the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the 1996 law because they deemed it unconstitutional. House Republicans then took over the taxpayer funded legal defense of DOMA.
The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples, including survivor benefits. Under the law, states can refuse to recognize gay marriages in states contracted in other states where it’s legal.
The Supreme Court will get the last word on DOMA soon. The court plans to hear arguments in March and a decision could come down in June.
House Republicans, who have repeatedly threatened to not raise the debt ceiling, quietly raised their budgetary allowance to defend the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.
In a newly revised legal contract obtained by The Huffington Post, the House of Representatives and its law firm, Bancroft LLC, signed on to raise the spending ceiling up to $3 million. A key section reads: “It is further understood and agreed that, effective January 4, 2013, the aforementioned $2.75 million cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding, $3 million upon written notice of the General Contractor specifying that the General Counsel is legally liable.”
This language was inserted into the governing rules package adopted by the 113th Congress, which in effect authorizes the House legal team to pay outside counsel to defend the federal ban on marriage equality in court.
On Tuesday, Democratic leaders in the House sent a formal complaint letter to Republican House Speaker John Boehner, calling it “the height of hypocrisy” for the GOP “to waste public funds in one breath then claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in the next.”
“We wish to strongly reaffirm our objections to the repeated actions by the Republican leadership to secretly and dramatically increase the contract between the House and outside counsel in arguing to uphold the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in more than a dozen cases,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer wrote in a joint letter. ”With Republicans willing to take our economy and our country to the brink of default in the name of deficit reduction, there is simply no excuse for any Member of Congress to commit taxpayer dollars to an unnecessary–and futile–legal battle.”
Pelosi and Hoyer requested more information on the total cost of this case and stressed the pointlessness of the GOP’s actions. “We believe it is only a matter of time before this offensive law is a discarded relic of a bygone era,” they wrote.
In the spring of 2011, the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the 1996 law because they deemed it unconstitutional. House Republicans then took over the taxpayer funded legal defense of DOMA.
The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples, including survivor benefits. Under the law, states can refuse to recognize gay marriages in states contracted in other states where it’s legal.
The Supreme Court will get the last word on DOMA soon. The court plans to hear arguments in March and a decision could come down in June.
STOP.. Just leave it alone....JUST STOP or go on another thread.....
MrsP it is a pattern with Mike. He never needed to bring out the insult but he did. So maybe if you curb his words then mine never even come into play. But since he did I am not going to stand by and take it.
Oh boy......
I agree, Mrs. P.
We're all very passionate about what we believe in and none of us are perfect...can we PLEASE all try to not take it to a personal level?
I just want Republicans to do what they are telling others to do. As a Republican, I have no problem saying that. .
I agree, 100%.
I agree, Mrs. P.
We're all very passionate about what we believe in and none of us are perfect...can we PLEASE all try to not take it to a personal level?
I just want Republicans to do what they are telling others to do. As a Republican, I have no problem saying that. .
I agree, 100%.
I DO NOT WANT THIS THREAD DELETED..Mike and Vance, go regroup and come back....PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS TODAY......
You made the point and guess what I misread what you wrote, and then you cross the line like you always do. Why are you always the biggest jerkoff on this forum? I would love to stand face to face with you sometime because I guarantee your internet insults would not come out of your mouth.
You posted:
{"If Obama believes that the DOMA is unconstitutional then it his right to choose not to defend it." (quoting my post)
No the President does not have that right. He has to follow the law until it is deemed unconstitutional by the court or congress over turns a law.}
I said he had the "right to chose not to defend it" and you said that "No the President does not have that right...."
You'd be well advised to quiet down and let the adults talk.
{"If Obama believes that the DOMA is unconstitutional then it his right to choose not to defend it." (quoting my post)
No the President does not have that right. He has to follow the law until it is deemed unconstitutional by the court or congress over turns a law.}
I said he had the "right to chose not to defend it" and you said that "No the President does not have that right...."
You'd be well advised to quiet down and let the adults talk.
newtowngirl: That is not the point, if I was to say that then there would be some dislike that would cause me to do that, not just that you disagreed with me.
mike my conclusion was and is still correct based on what you posted. "He still has a duty to enforce the law, but he is under no Constitutional duty to defend it in" and "However, the Constitution’s structure allows for the other branches of government to check the President’s actions. The legislature can impeach, the judiciary can overrule. Most importantly, the American people can vote for a new President (or a stronger congressional opposition) if they feel the current one is making constitutional decisions that are unjust."
So yes I guess he can not enforce it if he wants possible impeachment.
mike my conclusion was and is still correct based on what you posted. "He still has a duty to enforce the law, but he is under no Constitutional duty to defend it in" and "However, the Constitution’s structure allows for the other branches of government to check the President’s actions. The legislature can impeach, the judiciary can overrule. Most importantly, the American people can vote for a new President (or a stronger congressional opposition) if they feel the current one is making constitutional decisions that are unjust."
So yes I guess he can not enforce it if he wants possible impeachment.
I'm not even sure what this conversation is about anymore . . . I just want Republicans to do what they are telling others to do. As a Republican, I have no problem saying that.
Perhaps it is regrettable that some inflammatory language was used in the second article. That fact does not, however, render the conclusion invalid. There are countless other scholarly articles which reach the same conclusion without any inflammatory rhetoric. This isn't what I consider to be a real argument. There was merely a naked assertion devoid of any scholarly support or any intellectual reasoning and that assertion is palpably incorrect.
I would much rather converse with a weak minded person than a bigoted stupid person every time.
I would much rather converse with a weak minded person than a bigoted stupid person every time.
It doesn't bother me a bit if you call me weak minded.
You just happen to be just like Mike in your thinking when it comes to the above statement you made.
So it is ok that I call you weak minded because that is the obeservation I see? No it doesn't fly that way.
So it is ok that I call you weak minded because that is the obeservation I see? No it doesn't fly that way.
Excellent point Newtown Girl.
Thanks for finding those articles. They explain it very well.
Its not hateful to characterize behavior. For example, if someone says you are being childish, that does not denote hate, it is an observation based on the available evidence.
"cowardly and craven manner that he did"...those words are not disagreeing with him those are words filled with hate for the man. Someone who would disagree with him would not use those words if they did not have dislike/hate.
Vance-1
Newtowngirl-0
Vance-1
Newtowngirl-0
You mistake disagreeing with Bush for hating Bush. This dilutes all your arguments.
Well the 1st part of your post was interesting, the 2nd part lost you the argument by using a piece from people who hate President Bush.
And defend DOMA is what it appears is the theme, which is fine. But he still is governed by the law.
And defend DOMA is what it appears is the theme, which is fine. But he still is governed by the law.
It appears that Yale Undergraduate Law Review disagrees with that position.
Can Obama Refuse to Protect the Defense of Marriage Act?
".....Can Obama Refuse to Defend DOMA?
But does the fact that DOMA may be unconstitutional mean that the President can refuse to defend it? According to Walter Dellinger, former head of President Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel, the President can not only refuse to defend a statute he thinks is unconstitutional, but he can even refuse to execute the statute. In Dellinger’s memorandum, “Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes,” he writes that if “the President, exercising his independ- ent judgment, determines…that a provision would violate the Constitution…the President has the authority to decline
to execute the same.”13 In the case of DOMA, President Obama is not declining to execute the statute—he is merely refusing to defend the statute, in the hope that eventual liti- gation will lead the Court to strike down the law. Dellinger writes that this is a perfectly acceptable strategy, explaining that “the President may base his decision to comply (or de- cline to comply) in part on a desire to afford the Supreme Court an opportunity to review the constitutional judgment of the legislative branch.”
Court precedent also supports Obama’s decision not to defend a statute that he think is unconstitutional. In Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Freytag v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,14 he writes that the President has “the power to veto encroaching laws … or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.”15 In United States v. Cox,16 a federal circuit court supported the President’s refusal to carry out a prosecution, even though a federal grand jury had voted for indictment. In a concurring opinion on Cox, Judge Wisdom cites Attorney General Robert H. Jackson’s claim that “all … considerations point up the wisdom of vesting broad discretion in the United States Attorney.”17 Judge Wis- dom argues that “the framers wove a web of checks and bal- ances” into the Constitution, and that “the power of the executive not to prosecute…is the appropriate curb on a grand jury in keeping with the constitutional theory of checks and balances.”18
President Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA constitutes an executive check on the legislature—a check similar to Judge Wisdom’s check on grand juries in Cox, as well as Dellinger’s “Legal Check Model,” in which the President simply refuses to enforce statutes he thinks are unconstitutional. It is important to remember that in the Cox case, the President was refusing to carry out a power (the power of prosecution) that the Constitution explicitly attributes to the executive branch. In the case of DOMA, the President is merely refusing to defend a statute in court. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the executive is obliged to defend anything except the integrity of the Constitution itself (Article II, Section One). This is a problem for those who claim that Obama’s refusal to defend DOMA is unconstitutional. How can it be unconstitutional for the President to decline to defend a statute if the Constitution never explicitly confers to him that ob- ligation in the first place?
If there is anything unconstitutional about President Obama’s treatment of DOMA, it is that he is enforcing a law he has determined to be unconstitutional when he swore upon entering office that he would “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Doesn’t Obama’s willingness to enforce DOMA breach his oath? According to modern Court views on constitutional decision-making, Obama’s willingness to enforce a statute he thinks is unconstitutional is an appropriate act of deference to the judiciary. For example, in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha,19 Chief Justice Burger writes that the President “appropriately let the controversy take its course through the courts” rather than take action himself. Obama’s decision to continue executing DOMA, despite personal reservations, is thus in line with the Court’s view on the scope of the President’s constitutional decision- making abilities.
By all accounts, President Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA is an acceptable use of his presidential authority. However, the Constitution’s structure allows for the other branches of government to check the President’s actions. The legislature can impeach, the judiciary can overrule. Most importantly, the American people can vote for a new President (or a stronger congressional opposition) if they feel the current one is making constitutional decisions that are unjust."
http://yulr.org/can-obama-refuse-to-protect-the-defense-of-marriage-act/
And another opinion:
As Law Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar wrote in 2002, there is no way that these statements by Bush, followed by the fact that he signed the bill anyway can be squared with the Presidential duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If President Bush believed McCain-Feingold was, in whole or in part, unconstitutional, then it was his duty to veto the bill instead of acting in the cowardly and craven manner that he did. Similarly, President Obama has determined that Section Three of DOMA is unconstitutional. He still has a duty to enforce the law, but he is under no Constitutional duty to defend it in Court and, arguably, his oath requires that he order his deputies to do otherwise. Despite the concerns about Executive Branch power noted above, therefore, it is clear that the Obama Administration’s decision here was both appropriate and correct.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-it-proper-for-president-obama-to-decline-to-appeal-the-doma-cases/
Can Obama Refuse to Protect the Defense of Marriage Act?
".....Can Obama Refuse to Defend DOMA?
But does the fact that DOMA may be unconstitutional mean that the President can refuse to defend it? According to Walter Dellinger, former head of President Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel, the President can not only refuse to defend a statute he thinks is unconstitutional, but he can even refuse to execute the statute. In Dellinger’s memorandum, “Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes,” he writes that if “the President, exercising his independ- ent judgment, determines…that a provision would violate the Constitution…the President has the authority to decline
to execute the same.”13 In the case of DOMA, President Obama is not declining to execute the statute—he is merely refusing to defend the statute, in the hope that eventual liti- gation will lead the Court to strike down the law. Dellinger writes that this is a perfectly acceptable strategy, explaining that “the President may base his decision to comply (or de- cline to comply) in part on a desire to afford the Supreme Court an opportunity to review the constitutional judgment of the legislative branch.”
Court precedent also supports Obama’s decision not to defend a statute that he think is unconstitutional. In Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Freytag v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,14 he writes that the President has “the power to veto encroaching laws … or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.”15 In United States v. Cox,16 a federal circuit court supported the President’s refusal to carry out a prosecution, even though a federal grand jury had voted for indictment. In a concurring opinion on Cox, Judge Wisdom cites Attorney General Robert H. Jackson’s claim that “all … considerations point up the wisdom of vesting broad discretion in the United States Attorney.”17 Judge Wis- dom argues that “the framers wove a web of checks and bal- ances” into the Constitution, and that “the power of the executive not to prosecute…is the appropriate curb on a grand jury in keeping with the constitutional theory of checks and balances.”18
President Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA constitutes an executive check on the legislature—a check similar to Judge Wisdom’s check on grand juries in Cox, as well as Dellinger’s “Legal Check Model,” in which the President simply refuses to enforce statutes he thinks are unconstitutional. It is important to remember that in the Cox case, the President was refusing to carry out a power (the power of prosecution) that the Constitution explicitly attributes to the executive branch. In the case of DOMA, the President is merely refusing to defend a statute in court. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the executive is obliged to defend anything except the integrity of the Constitution itself (Article II, Section One). This is a problem for those who claim that Obama’s refusal to defend DOMA is unconstitutional. How can it be unconstitutional for the President to decline to defend a statute if the Constitution never explicitly confers to him that ob- ligation in the first place?
If there is anything unconstitutional about President Obama’s treatment of DOMA, it is that he is enforcing a law he has determined to be unconstitutional when he swore upon entering office that he would “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Doesn’t Obama’s willingness to enforce DOMA breach his oath? According to modern Court views on constitutional decision-making, Obama’s willingness to enforce a statute he thinks is unconstitutional is an appropriate act of deference to the judiciary. For example, in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha,19 Chief Justice Burger writes that the President “appropriately let the controversy take its course through the courts” rather than take action himself. Obama’s decision to continue executing DOMA, despite personal reservations, is thus in line with the Court’s view on the scope of the President’s constitutional decision- making abilities.
By all accounts, President Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA is an acceptable use of his presidential authority. However, the Constitution’s structure allows for the other branches of government to check the President’s actions. The legislature can impeach, the judiciary can overrule. Most importantly, the American people can vote for a new President (or a stronger congressional opposition) if they feel the current one is making constitutional decisions that are unjust."
http://yulr.org/can-obama-refuse-to-protect-the-defense-of-marriage-act/
And another opinion:
As Law Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar wrote in 2002, there is no way that these statements by Bush, followed by the fact that he signed the bill anyway can be squared with the Presidential duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If President Bush believed McCain-Feingold was, in whole or in part, unconstitutional, then it was his duty to veto the bill instead of acting in the cowardly and craven manner that he did. Similarly, President Obama has determined that Section Three of DOMA is unconstitutional. He still has a duty to enforce the law, but he is under no Constitutional duty to defend it in Court and, arguably, his oath requires that he order his deputies to do otherwise. Despite the concerns about Executive Branch power noted above, therefore, it is clear that the Obama Administration’s decision here was both appropriate and correct.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-it-proper-for-president-obama-to-decline-to-appeal-the-doma-cases/
"If Obama believes that the DOMA is unconstitutional then it his right to choose not to defend it."
No the President does not have that right. He has to follow the law until it is deemed unconstitutional by the court or congress over turns a law.
No the President does not have that right. He has to follow the law until it is deemed unconstitutional by the court or congress over turns a law.
But it really does bother me that we speak of fiscal responsibility and making cuts and living within our means and then you read things like this.
Absolutely. It's not right to hold a hard line about something, then turn around and do exactly the same thing you're fighting against somewhere else.
The saying...."Do as I say, not as I do", comes to mind.
Absolutely. It's not right to hold a hard line about something, then turn around and do exactly the same thing you're fighting against somewhere else.
The saying...."Do as I say, not as I do", comes to mind.
Well, it is Obama's right to sign or not sign/ extend or not extend laws that he feels are unconstitutional but knowing this is going to the supreme court then, I do think that those that support the law can then provide legal support to defending it (whether I agree with the law or not). But that should be private money in my opinion and not tax payer money.
I wouldn't think DOMA was a good law myself but in trying to think why someone is against it, it has been said to me that they feel that the traditional values of marriage are in jeapardy in this country. They feel threatened somehow by the idea of untraditional marriage. Not sure why. There are many who feel being gay is a sin. My thought is that it probably isn't a sin and if it is, we all are a bunch of sinners and no sin is above any other.
But it really does bother me that we speak of fiscal responsibility and making cuts and living within our means and then you read things like this.
I wouldn't think DOMA was a good law myself but in trying to think why someone is against it, it has been said to me that they feel that the traditional values of marriage are in jeapardy in this country. They feel threatened somehow by the idea of untraditional marriage. Not sure why. There are many who feel being gay is a sin. My thought is that it probably isn't a sin and if it is, we all are a bunch of sinners and no sin is above any other.
But it really does bother me that we speak of fiscal responsibility and making cuts and living within our means and then you read things like this.
Yeah....this is just stupid.
calling it “the height of hypocrisy” for the GOP “to waste public funds in one breath then claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in the next.”
It's very true...can't have it both ways.
calling it “the height of hypocrisy” for the GOP “to waste public funds in one breath then claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in the next.”
It's very true...can't have it both ways.
Just 2 points.
Specialmom, you said that the "Majority should win on what our laws reflect...". That's true to a certain extent but if legislation is unconstitutional then it doesn't matter what the majority wants or thinks. The Constitution rules - not the majority.
If Obama believes that the DOMA is unconstitutional then it his right to choose not to defend it. The fact that Clinton signed the law is irrelevant insofar as the constitutionality of the law is concerned.
Specialmom, you said that the "Majority should win on what our laws reflect...". That's true to a certain extent but if legislation is unconstitutional then it doesn't matter what the majority wants or thinks. The Constitution rules - not the majority.
If Obama believes that the DOMA is unconstitutional then it his right to choose not to defend it. The fact that Clinton signed the law is irrelevant insofar as the constitutionality of the law is concerned.
They are upholding the LAW. Understand that DOMA is the law signed by who? President Clinton.
Stop with the debt ceiling talk, it's not being raised for a reason right now because the "cuts" do nothing because more is added then what the "cuts" take care of.
LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop with the debt ceiling talk, it's not being raised for a reason right now because the "cuts" do nothing because more is added then what the "cuts" take care of.
LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
