From the Constitution to Pandora's Box

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#21 Jul 5, 2013
RU_Kiddingme wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who really holds you in contempt left a trail of hypocrites for me to follow.
The rest, as they say, is history.
So...you sniffed Duke's butt, and followed his trail of turds.
Well, looks like you found him reveling in his sh!t.

“The One! The Only! RUKiddingme”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey, Baby!

#22 Jul 5, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Reader and Johnson are bumps on the road?
I thought you were ignoring me, Georgeleh.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#23 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the executive is not.
Making up sh!t doesn't make you the alpha dog.
It just makes more work for your master.
Answer this Tippy. What was the Executive's position on enforcing or defending DOMA, and why?

What was the end result out of the Supreme Court?

woof

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#24 Jul 5, 2013
RU_Kiddingme wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were ignoring me, Georgeleh.
I am.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#25 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer this Tippy. What was the Executive's position on enforcing or defending DOMA, and why?
What was the end result out of the Supreme Court?
woof
The administration does not have the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Constitution it deems popular. There had been no decision by SCOTUS -- nor was SCOTUS' eventual decision a given in this matter. Therefore, Obama breached his constitutional duty to defend a legitimately passed Act of Congress.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#26 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The administration does not have the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Constitution it deems popular. There had been no decision by SCOTUS -- nor was SCOTUS' eventual decision a given in this matter. Therefore, Obama breached his constitutional duty to defend a legitimately passed Act of Congress.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. DOMA was indeed struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in US v. Windsor.

The AG, at the direction of the President, had previously declined to defend DOMA after concluding that the statute violated the Constitution.

So once again...to review...you're wrong.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#27 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. DOMA was indeed struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in US v. Windsor.
The AG, at the direction of the President, had previously declined to defend DOMA after concluding that the statute violated the Constitution.
So once again...to review...you're wrong.
woof
Your reading comprehension skills suck.

From Holder's letter on the matter:

...the President and [the Attorney General] have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law then, from that perspective, there is no reasonable defense of DOMA."

There was no existing case law upon which to base this decision.
Therefore, it was entirely improper and guided by political whim.
The law should have been defended until properly ruled upon.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#28 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your reading comprehension skills suck.
From Holder's letter on the matter:
...the President and [the Attorney General] have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law then, from that perspective, there is no reasonable defense of DOMA."
There was no existing case law upon which to base this decision.
Therefore, it was entirely improper and guided by political whim.
The law should have been defended until properly ruled upon.
They declined to defend it on the grounds that it was not Constitutional.

It was found to be unconstitutional.

The fact that the result doesn't please you is meaningless.

Have a good day.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#29 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
They declined to defend it on the grounds that it was not Constitutional.
It was found to be unconstitutional.
The fact that the result doesn't please you is meaningless.
Have a good day.
woof
Obama had absolutely no legal ground upon which to base his declaration.
You know it...and I know it.
But you can keep on pretending.

It's what your leader does best.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#30 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama had absolutely no legal ground upon which to base his declaration.
You know it...and I know it.
But you can keep on pretending.
It's what your leader does best.
The Supreme Court disposed of your proposition. You're wrong.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#31 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court disposed of your proposition. You're wrong.
woof
To repeat, you are wrong.

Up until the Supreme Court's decision, Obama had no case law upon which to base his non-defense of DOMA; nor did Obama know with a certainty the forthcoming decision of the Court.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#32 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
First it was DOMA, in a sop to the gay lobby.
The federal government is required to accept as valid, any marriage that is valid in the state where the couple lives. This is the case with common-law marriages in those states where such marriages are valid (10 states plus DC) and it should be for gay marriages in those states where such is valid (13 states plus DC).

Next on the agenda will be the requirement for the federal government to accept as valid any marriage that was valid where it was entered into, regardless of the state of residence.

After that will be the requirement for states to treat as valid any marriage which was valid in the state it was entered in to.

That's if the overruling of all states' laws banning gay marriage doesn't happen first.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#33 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
To repeat, you are wrong.
Up until the Supreme Court's decision, Obama had no case law upon which to base his non-defense of DOMA; nor did Obama know with a certainty the forthcoming decision of the Court.
1) There is plenty of related case law from which one could arrive at a conclusion that DOMA was unconstitutional. Your argument is silly.

2) Certainty about the outcome is not a prerequisite for approving a policy of not defending a particular statute from attack.

You really do not know what you are discussing. Stick to whatever it is you do when you're not bashing gays and determining who's going to hell.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#34 Jul 5, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The federal government is required to accept as valid, any marriage that is valid in the state where the couple lives. This is the case with common-law marriages in those states where such marriages are valid (10 states plus DC) and it should be for gay marriages in those states where such is valid (13 states plus DC).
Next on the agenda will be the requirement for the federal government to accept as valid any marriage that was valid where it was entered into, regardless of the state of residence.
After that will be the requirement for states to treat as valid any marriage which was valid in the state it was entered in to.
That's if the overruling of all states' laws banning gay marriage doesn't happen first.
Oh, I get it, Tony. And I get that your pleased.

As you will recall, first the homos only wanted to be left alone to live their lives in peace. Americans complied.

Then, the homes invited Uncle Sam into their bedrooms and demanded that he hold their same-sex relationships to be the equivalent of marriage. Americans were forced to agree.

All the while, the homos insisted that their campaign would now end, and that they would never seek to force same-sex marriage upon children in the schools -- "No, no...everyone knows that sex education is optional." Americans have discovered otherwise.

The next discovery will involve the fact that no U.S. citizen will be able to be denied any form of marriage based on "equality under the law." And again, that's something the homos said would never happen. Americans know better.

But you have the gall to call those opposed to same-sex and other relationships "bullies" and "control freaks."

BS.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#35 Jul 5, 2013
Don't go killing anyone Tippy. You sound really upset.

woof

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#36 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
1) There is plenty of related case law from which one could arrive at a conclusion that DOMA was unconstitutional. Your argument is silly.
2) Certainty about the outcome is not a prerequisite for approving a policy of not defending a particular statute from attack.
You really do not know what you are discussing. Stick to whatever it is you do when you're not bashing gays and determining who's going to hell.
woof
1) There was no case law supporting Obama's arbitrary declaration; if there had been, Holder would have cited it, fool.

2) Indeed, a president must be certain that constitutional rights are being trampled prior to making such a decision; instead, due to the lack of related case law, Obama had no certainty -- only a possibility that the Court might decide in agreement with him.

You don't know half of what you pretend to know.
It's becoming clearer by the day.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#37 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
Don't go killing anyone Tippy. You sound really upset.
woof
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.

~ Andrew Breitbart
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#38 Jul 5, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
1) There was no case law supporting Obama's arbitrary declaration; if there had been, Holder would have cited it, fool.
2) Indeed, a president must be certain that constitutional rights are being trampled prior to making such a decision; instead, due to the lack of related case law, Obama had no certainty -- only a possibility that the Court might decide in agreement with him.
You don't know half of what you pretend to know.
It's becoming clearer by the day.
Wrong again Tippy. You should avoid discussions of Constitutional Law and Executive Authority.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/1...

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#39 Jul 5, 2013

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#40 Jul 5, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again Tippy. You should avoid discussions of Constitutional Law and Executive Authority.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/1...
woof
"...the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny."

Pure consitutional theory.
No case law relevant to the legislation in question.

I can't wait until the next GOP administration adopts a constitutional theory as a means for deeming legislation unconstitutional and then refusing to defend it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Clintons linked to Russia $500,000 13 min Bad COP No dognut 44
PRESIDENT TRUMP takes Youngstown by STORM! 16 min Big B 5
Are Jobs More Important Than Our Environment? 38 min Reality 201
Robert Mueller Investigating Donald Trump 3 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 590
Hog on the trough or can? 3 hr Brice N Livingston 3
Dems in disarray- Well, yeah! 6 hr Myothernameisdpants 996
Why are Trump's Kids so ugly? 7 hr Myothernameisdpants 105
News Scandal forces appraisal of gay issues | The Co... (Oct '10) 13 hr Another CLGI Member 307

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages