Obama; A One Man Supreme Court

Barack Obama has become a one man Supreme Court by instructing his Justice Department to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton and it forbids federal recognition of same sex marriages.

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996. Newsmax

What kind of renegade administration will ignore the law because it does not think the law is Constitutional? The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on the Constitutionality of a law. If Obama and his drones think that it is not Constitutional then they should defend it less vigorously and lose the issue in Court but the end game is that the court should decide.

We have three branches of government and Obama heads the Executive branch. That branch is responsible for enforcing the law. The Judicial branch decides on the Constitutionality of the laws that have been enacted through a collaboration between the Legislative and Executive branches. End of story.

Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich made valid points when they stated that this kind of act, should it stand, would allow future presidents (read Republican presidents) to decide that laws are not Constitutional and fail to defend them.

The example they both gave is to suppose a future President Palin (Rush picked her because the left goes rabid at the mention of her name) decided that Roe Vs., Wade was unconstitutional and would no longer be defended by the federal government.

Gingrich indicated the left would go absolutely bonkers and be demanding impeachment, implying that the same fate could await Obama.

The left called George Bush King George and claimed he led like some kind of king rather than president. The reality is that Barack Obama has ignored the courts (the Gulf drilling moratorium and the unconstitutional Obamacare) and now is ignoring the Constitution by failing to defend laws that have been enacted in accordance with the Constitution and acting like he is the Supreme Court.

I will not, however, equate Obama to a king.

He is acting more like a dictator…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

8 Responses to “Obama; A One Man Supreme Court”

  1. aerfesdv says:

    if it wasn’t an outdated law, maybe I’d care

    • Eoj Trahneir says:

      If Aerf-aerf doggy weren’t an out-dated normal-phobic, maybe I’d care what (it)thought.

    • Big Dog says:

      So what you are saying is, as long as someone thinks a law is outdated it is OK to ignore the Constitution. So if people think Roe is outdated or equal rights, or women’s suffrage or anything else else then it is OK to ignore the Constitution.

      How about you think about what you want to write before you write it?

  2. Mr. Ogre says:

    Big Dog, you know I love you, but I absolutely have to disagree with you on this one. In fact, I posted on almost this exact issue a little while ago (here: http://www.onebigdog.net/checks-and-balances-2/ ). Now I don’t agree with Obama not defending the law, because I think the law is a good one and Obama is pandering for votes. But I think he absolutely does have the right to do what he’s doing.

    The ONLY way a law should be a law is if FOUR things happen:

    1. Congress passes the law.
    2. The president agrees with the law and uses the executive department to enforce the law.
    3. The courts agree with the law and enforce the law in their courts.
    4. A jury agrees with the law and punishes people for violating the law.

    The way this country was set up, according to the Constitution, a law is NOT a law just because Congress wants it to be — instead, the whole idea of checks and balances ensures that ANY ONE of those four steps can stop a law from being a law.

    of course, that’s the way the Constitution was set up, NOT the way things actually happen today!

    • Big Dog says:

      You are absolutely correct. However, the way our system is set up someone has to object to a law in order for the courts to review it. As it stands, the bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. Of course we expect them to check Constitutionality first but court challenges do arise. If someone thinks a law is unconstitutional then it should be challenged in court. The government has a duty to defend the law and the courts have a duty to decide. No president has the right to unilaterally act as the court and decide something is unconstitutional.

      • Ogre says:

        I’m not saying the president can say it’s unconstitutional — but I am saying he is free to ignore enforcement.

        It’s the same as a jury — if a jury hears that someone has used drugs, the jury has a right to say, “Know what? We don’t think that should be a law that someone should get punished for. Not guilty.”

        I think it’s one of the more powerful ways that we have checks and balances. In a way, it’s the opposite of “Oh, I’m just doing my job.”

        And yes, taken to it’s logical conclusion, a president could simply order his executive department to ignore a whole set of laws and not enforce them, thereby nullifying those laws.

        I love a constitutional republic.

        • Eoj Trahneir says:

          What he has announced that he has instructed the federal lawyers to do (or rather to stop doing) has to do with the law passed during Clinton’s administration called the “Defense of Marriage Act”. Actually, the act says that one state cannot be forced to abide by laws enacted by a different state – thus, if Delaware makes gay marriage legal, Texas cannot be forced to recognize those marriages conducted in Delaware as legal. It is really a States’ Rights Law that applies to many other subjects besides gay marriages – that just happens to be the hot-button issue of the moment. It’s a very disturbing development, not only because of the gay marriage element, but further because of the states’ rights element. Most of all, though, is the idea of the president just saying, “I don’t agree with the law, therefore I’ve instructed my Attorney General to stop defending it.” Someone wrote a piece that has been circulating in the conservative circles taking Obama’s statement and changing the names to “President Sarah Palin”, and “Attorney General Rush Limbaugh”, (some other official) “Glen Beck”, etc. and then substituting the word “abortion” for “gay marriage” as the “moral issue with which I am wrestling and my position is not fully established – it is still evolving.” It’s pretty astonishing when you turn the statement around that way and realize what the outrage would be.

  3. PRADEEP says:

    There is no confidential Attorney-client relationship formed by using Laws.com website and information provided on this
    site is not legal advice. For legal advice, please contact your attorney. Attorneys listed on this website are not refferred
    or endorsed by this website. By using Laws.com you agree to Laws.com Terms Of Use.Laws.com is the world’s top legal resource.