ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Obama Holder To State Attorneys General: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=281760)

mikey23545 02-26-2014 08:53 AM

Holder To State Attorneys General: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With
 
This country is descending into tyranny...

Eric Holder To State Attorneys General: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With


U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today that state attorneys general are not forced to defend laws in their states that ban same-sex marriage if they believe it to be unconstitutional.

Holder delivered the remarks at the National Association of Attorneys General Winter Meeting (NAAG) at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C.

In 2011, Holder and Obama decided that DOJ employees would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, arguing that the act was unconstitutional discrimination. Since that decision, the Obama Administration has advanced its position on gay rights.

Last summer, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States vs. Windsor, ruling it unconstitutional under Due Process to restrict the federal interpretation of “marriage” to apply only to heterosexual unions.

“This marked a critical step forward and a resounding victory for equal treatment and equal protection under the law,” Holder noted.

The Obama Administration’s most recent step forward moved to extend veterans benefits to same-sex married couples – a step that Holder wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders “was consistent with the Court’s decision in Windsor in June.”

So far, six attorneys general have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage, including Mark Herring, D-Va., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Ellen Rosenblum, D-Ore.

These state laws are often state constitutional provisions or laws enacted by referendum (people voting directly at the polls), so some find it especially anti-democratic for a state Attorney General not to defend them.

Colorado Attorney General John W. Suthers, R-Colo., voiced his opposition to Holder in a Washington Post editorial earlier this month.

“Depending on one’s view of the laws in question, such a ‘litigation veto’ may, in the short term, be a terrific thing; an unpopular law is defended and the attorney general can take credit. … But in the longer term, this practice corrodes our system of checks and balances, public belief in the power of democracy and ultimately the moral and legal authority on which attorneys general must depend,” Suthers wrote.

Former Virginia Solicitor General, William H. Hurd, also expressed his concern vis-a-vis Holder’s position.

“These are important issues, but the job of an attorney general is not to act as a judge and decide them. His job is to act as an advocate and defend the laws enacted through the democratic process.”


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-marriage-ban/


So now, the Obama Brown Shirts will start deciding which laws they shall enforce and which they will not...a hop, skip, and jump away from writing the laws themselves...

petegz28 02-26-2014 08:54 AM

Tells you how much he values the oath of his office. Dude needs to be impeached.

suzzer99 02-26-2014 09:09 AM

Isn't this the same move you guys are always applauding when states and municipalities claim they won't enact federal gun-control laws?

Cochise 02-26-2014 09:12 AM

No different than their attitudes on Obamacare and immigration. Re-write laws as they see fit, don't enforce others as they see fit.

Imperial presidency.

Brock 02-26-2014 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99 (Post 10454558)
Isn't this the same move you guys are always applauding when states and municipalities claim they won't enact federal gun-control laws?

True enough.

BigChiefTablet 02-26-2014 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99 (Post 10454558)
Isn't this the same move you guys are always applauding when states and municipalities claim they won't enact federal gun-control laws?

Well, no.

If the people of a state pushed for a law and the attorney general of that state refuses to enforce it, it is not the same as not enforcing a federal law that the people of the state disagree with and didn't want.

The difference is in what the people want.

petegz28 02-26-2014 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99 (Post 10454558)
Isn't this the same move you guys are always applauding when states and municipalities claim they won't enact federal gun-control laws?

You couldn't be any more wrong. I believe those instances involved votes and what not. Not a decision by 1 individual. Nice try though.

petegz28 02-26-2014 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 10454569)
True enough.

And another swing and a miss :LOL:

Amnorix 02-26-2014 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 10454684)
You couldn't be any more wrong. I believe those instances involved votes and what not. Not a decision by 1 individual. Nice try though.


Errr...no, he's precisely correct.

In our system of government, there is absolutely no requirement that states utilize their police powers to enforce federal laws. That's as true for federal gun control legislation as it is for gay marriage laws or sodomy laws or whatever.

All that said, I'm not really very keen on the POTUS and AG unilaterally deciding not to enforce legally enacted federal laws. The proper procedure is to rescind those laws. All that said, I don't really know what the history is around "Presidential nullification" if you will, of laws by failing to enforce them.

BucEyedPea 02-26-2014 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99 (Post 10454558)
Isn't this the same move you guys are always applauding when states and municipalities claim they won't enact federal gun-control laws?

Nullification of unConstitional laws is not the same thing. States have this right in order to protect against Federal tyranny.

petegz28 02-26-2014 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 10454703)
Errr...no, he's precisely correct.

In our system of government, there is absolutely no requirement that states utilize their police powers to enforce federal laws. That's as true for federal gun control legislation as it is for gay marriage laws or sodomy laws or whatever.

All that said, I'm not really very keen on the POTUS and AG unilaterally deciding not to enforce legally enacted federal laws. The proper procedure is to rescind those laws. All that said, I don't really know what the history is around "Presidential nullification" if you will, of laws by failing to enforce them.

Muh bad

Garcia Bronco 02-26-2014 10:52 AM

So Holder has extended judicial review to anyone. It mean it's a shakey concept to begin with, but at least it has check and balances. This on the other hand is far worse.

Fish 02-26-2014 11:17 AM

"Laws You Disagree With" is not the same thing as "believe it to be unconstitutional".

petegz28 02-26-2014 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish (Post 10454953)
"Laws You Disagree With" is not the same thing as "believe it to be unconstitutional".

Actually I would argue one has a basis in the other. That being said it is not for the DOJ or any other AG to decide what is and what isn't Constitutional. That's what courts are for. Or at least that's what I thought.

suzzer99 02-26-2014 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 10454605)
Well, no.

If the people of a state pushed for a law and the attorney general of that state refuses to enforce it, it is not the same as not enforcing a federal law that the people of the state disagree with and didn't want.

The difference is in what the people want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 10454684)
You couldn't be any more wrong. I believe those instances involved votes and what not. Not a decision by 1 individual. Nice try though.

You mean like how the people of Mississippi voted to keep blacks out of Ole Miss?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.