It seems the President and DOJ went a step further than just not enforcing the law. By not defending the law it seems they have effectively circumvented the Legislative branch entirely. Has this ever been done before? It would seem to me, but I don’t know for sure, that DOJ has an obligation to defend any law on the books.
Out of curiosity, what would happen if DOJ just decided to quit defending civil rights legislation or Roe v Wade?
Do they have standing?
Cite that they’re not enforcing the law?
My heart would break if Lujan was used to hurt a right wing group…
Er, why? Throwing up your hands and declaring a problem to be insoluble is the correct answer when given a problem that is, in fact, insoluble.
For example, if Congresscritters took it into their pointy little heads to (for instance) ban talk radio, would the Attorney General be obligated to come up with some sort of insane troll logic to defend the ridiculous proposition that the such a law is constitutional?
I didn’t say that they were not enforcing the law. I said that they went a step further in my opinion. Read the post I quoted.
He doesn’t believe anybody can, and the President agrees.
Because the authority to enforce federal laws is expressly given to the executive branch.
The Courts would still reject challenges. Just because the DOJ doesn’t show up to defend a challenge doesn’t mean the challenge is going to win.
Your understanding is incorrect. Obama has not circumvented the legislative branch. DOMA is still law, Its Constitutionality will be decided by the courts, not by Obama. If the Courts decided the law is unconstitutional, they will strike it down, if not, not. The DOJ showing up to defend a law does not make any difference to its Constitutionality, and it’s not obligated to make a pretence of defending Constitutionality where it doesn’t exist.
It’s easily solvable. There is nothing objectively true about the various levels of scrutiny used to evaluate laws or which groups do or do not rate which level of scrutiny.
Arguing the constitutionality of a law in court is not an enforcement activity.
Right! I have no idea why this is even an issue, if this is indeed the law, how could this situation not be a conflict of interest?
I was responding to Oakminster’s argument that Congress shouldn’t hire lawyers to defend laws that the DOJ considers blatantly unconstitutional. Under his scenario, the DOJ would effectively be deciding what is unconstitutional, because if they don’t defend a law then no one else would.
I say fuck it. We’ve already seen in the past 2 years that the Republicans will strike first on any new depth to sink to. I don’t believe for one second that with all the screaming about socialism and how Obama’s a secret Muslim and not a real American, that a Republican president, once in power, will simply line-item veto and ignore any of the progressive legislation Obama’s enacted
They cried and cried about the deficit, then one of their first moves was to attack a health care law that saves money. They claim to be fiscally responsible, and they immediately exclude their own pet projects from consideration. Their leaders encourage violence and refuse to take responsibility. Well fuck that
I hope Obama ignores DOMA. I expect that any Republican in the future will do worst. Playing by the rules gets us nothing but an annoyed liberal base and a bully conservative base that thinks we’ll cave to anything. Obama should ignore any law he deems unconstitutional because the next Republican president will probably start writing laws in by himself. And if it’s Palin, she’ll probably carve amendments out of the bill of rights personally
Sure…nobody will defend it yet the court will still find it constitutional. Just stop and think about what you are saying.
According to Holder, he and Obama determined DADT is unconstitutional. So, Obama’s justice department will not defend a law on the books…effectively circumventing the Legislative branch. They also determined that the law is unconstitutional…how Justice and the president can do that is beyond me.
Forget about the issue at hand. This sets dangerous precedent for any President to effectively eliminate any law they don’t like. One job of the executive branch is to uphold laws on the books regardless of personal ideology. As Mr Smashy and I have pointed out, the next Republican president could refuse to defend Roe v Wade or the individual mandate. My argument is not about the particular law but the potential consequences. This is one step closer to becoming Absurdistan.
I know that you, and others here who may disagree with DOMA, wish to see the law found unconstitutional or repealed. That’s fine…that’s the way these issues should be handled. I believe you also know that the way this administration is going about this is simply dangerous.
I thought you were saying they were doing both because of the way you said “just.” Nevermind, then.
That’s their opinion about the law.
Not unless you think the government is constantly being sued over every law on the book. This kind of thing could only apply to laws that are being challenged with lawsuits against the government.
Roe v. Wade is not a law, it’s a court decision. A Republican president probably would not defend the health care law, but that doesn’t affect what a court is going to do. Is it a problem that Republican Attorneys General are involved in challenging that law in a bunch of states?
Not at all. I’m glad they’ve stopped dragging their feet on this issue. Addressing gay rights gradually wasn’t working for them anyway.
Nobody has to defend it for the court to find it Constitutional. If you get a speeding ticket and try to argue to the judge that speed limits are unconstitutional, he isn’t going to need Eric Holder to stand up and argue the other side. He’s going to tell you to shut up and pay your fucking ticket.
More? The point is equal protection and equal rights. Deciding a group of people have no right to marry and inherit each others shared wealth ,is discriminatory and an abuse of law. That is singling a group out to enjoy less rights.
I realize that but, if you believe that arguments in court have any meaning, you must realize that not defending a law is tantamount to agreeing with the plaintiffs. If, as in most constitutional cases, it is a close call then DADT will certainly be found unconstitutional as a result. Unless the case is a sure thing a defense is a necessity.
So what? If the law is Constitutional, it will stand up anyway. If not, not. Besides, Holder has determined that no Constitutional defense is possible anyway, so it would be a waste of time to try.
I would wager that most laws could be challenged on constitutional grounds.
[QUOTE=Marley23;13504783Roe v. Wade is not a law, it’s a court decision. A Republican president probably would not defend the health care law, but that doesn’t affect what a court is going to do. Is it a problem that Republican Attorneys General are involved in challenging that law in a bunch of states?[/quote]
My mistake on Roe v Wade. I disagree that a Republican president would not defend the health care law. Have past administrations refused to defend the constitutionality of laws that they disagree with? I honestly don’t know the answer to this. I also disagree that not defending a law has no effect on what a court will do. Are you saying that cases should not even be argued?
I’m confused about your question on Republican Attorneys General. What does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
[QUOTE=Marley23;13504783Not at all. I’m glad they’ve stopped dragging their feet on this issue. Addressing gay rights gradually wasn’t working for them anyway.[/QUOTE]
So, for you, the ends justify the means? I’m really surprised that people don’t see the danger inherent in this policy.
You are fully aware that very few cases are that clear-cut. I don’t think any of the lower court rulings have found DOMA to be unconstitutional. I seriously doubt that there is no Constitutional defense.