|
Hey BarryO...
#247250 - 02/23/11 09:09 PM
|
|
|
If you would try reading the Constitution instead of wiping your ass with it, you might learn that you don't have the authority to declare an existing law unconstitutional, in whole or in part.
Regardless of any thoughts about the actual law (Defense of Marriage Act).
...Wait, does that mean he thinks parts of it aren't good enough to use as toilet paper...?
|
|
|
|
Re: Hey BarryO...
[Re: TriggerFin]
#247262 - 02/23/11 10:05 PM
|
|
|
> If you would try reading the Constitution instead of wiping your ass with it, you
> might learn that you don't have the authority to declare an existing law
> unconstitutional, in whole or in part.
>
> Regardless of any thoughts about the actual law (Defense of Marriage Act).
>
> ...Wait, does that mean he thinks parts of it aren't good enough to use as toilet
> paper...?
The question of import, as always, is: is the law functional? Proceed from there.
|
Consider it high comedy....sincere tragedy....whatever...don't take it personally.
The Culture
|
|
italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey BarryO...
[Re: TriggerFin]
#247284 - 02/24/11 12:54 AM
|
|
|
> If you would try reading the Constitution instead of wiping your ass with it, you
> might learn that you don't have the authority to declare an existing law
> unconstitutional, in whole or in part.
>
> Regardless of any thoughts about the actual law (Defense of Marriage Act).
>
> ...Wait, does that mean he thinks parts of it aren't good enough to use as toilet
> paper...?
He isn't declaring it unconstitutional. He is declaring it indefensible which is well within his powers. DOMA still stands as law.
//expected better from you Trig.
|
|
|
|
Re: Hey BarryO...
[Re: italie]
#247289 - 02/24/11 01:31 AM
|
|
|
"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."
"the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment."
|
|
|
| italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey BarryO...
[Re: TriggerFin]
#247294 - 02/24/11 03:13 AM
|
|
|
> "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."
>
> "the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the
> Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who
> are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the
> Fifth Amendment."
That is his opinion, not judgement, based upon the resulting action. No law was repealed by Barry, nor have any rules been broken.
If you are butt-hurt about gays getting hitched I'm sorry. You probably feel a little like the South did when Lincoln started spouting off that "slaves were people too". That must suck.
|
|
|
| DMala |
|
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
|
Posts: 3989
|
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey BarryO...
[Re: italie]
#247306 - 02/24/11 05:42 AM
|
|
|
> > "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."
> >
> > "the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of
> the
> > Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who
> > are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the
> > Fifth Amendment."
>
> That is his opinion, not judgement, based upon the resulting action. No law was
> repealed by Barry, nor have any rules been broken.
As much as I am in favor of getting rid of DOMA, I was a little taken aback by this until I read more about it. I think the important thing to realize is that it's pretty much a symbolic gesture. Congress can, and presumably will, step in to defend the law in the DOJ's absence. All this does is let the Obama administration distance themselves from it until it can be repealed through legislation or overturned by the courts.
|
|
|
|
Re: Hey BarryO...
[Re: italie]
#247311 - 02/24/11 06:40 AM
|
|
|
> He isn't declaring it unconstitutional. He is declaring it indefensible which is well
> within his powers. DOMA still stands as law.
Exactly.
The Legislative Branch (Congress) makes the laws.
The Executive Branch (Barry) enforces the laws.
The Judicial Branch (Courts) interpret, review, apply, and/or strike down laws in whole or in part if necessary.
The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.
|
GroovyMAME support forum on BYOAC
|
|
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Threaded 
Hey BarryO...
Reply
[Re: 
