« "The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb" | Main | Church as Sanctuary »

Obama: "not just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial authority"

David Limbaugh on the Obama administration's decision to effectively abandon the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

During his presidential campaign, Obama stated that he did not support same-sex marriage but that he did believe that DOMA should be repealed. He gave no hint that he would take it upon himself to issue a presidential edict, without a congressional bill placed before him, forbidding the executive branch from enforcing the law. But that is precisely what he did this week.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama had concluded that the administration would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA. Holder acknowledged that the Justice Department had previously defended DOMA in court under a "rational basis standard." (It's interesting they chose Section 3, because many legal scholars believe Section 2 is more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.) But he said Obama now believes that "a more heightened standard of scrutiny" should be required for laws involving same-sex marriage -- the same standard that applies to "laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination."

To understand the magnitude of Obama's action, we must again consider the above-cited fact that both chambers of Congress passed DOMA by overwhelming majorities reflecting the will of the people that marriage be defined, for legal and policy purposes, as it always had been. Also, no federal appellate court has ruled the statute unconstitutional.

As he has in so many other areas (EPA, the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the authority of the other two coequal branches of government to make himself, in effect, not just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial authority.

To hell with the three branches of government and the system of checks and balances preventing one branch from usurping power. 

We have Obama.  King Obama.  He is The Won.

And he reigns.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (11)

Please Rick, he is our Mess... (Below threshold)

Please Rick, he is our Messiah, our Savior and our King, and a constitutional law scholar and Harvard professor. He is clearly our superior. Just obey him, already.

This sets a dangerous prece... (Below threshold)

This sets a dangerous precedent, but the child currently in charge has never shown any understanding of, or respect for, our institutions.

Well,a future republican pr... (Below threshold)

Well,a future republican president can now tell his or her Justice Department to not defend abortion rights because they feel it is unconstitutional.

This bozo in the White House has no idea how he sets a precedent. ww

Well, this is what you get ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Well, this is what you get when you have a president who does not believe in the constitution, does not believe in the rule of law, views politics and government as a spoils system, has snubbed every democracy that is our ally and cozied up to nearly every dictator who is our enemy.

obama hates democracy, he married a woman who hates America, he was raised and mentored his entire life by avowed communists. For those who had eyes to see in 2008 there are no surprises here.

I think this ties in to Ric... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I think this ties in to Rick's previous post:

*"Posted by Rick
Published: February 23, 2011 - 8:08 PM
The picture painted by some describing this President as a bumbling, incompetent fool is, I'm increasingly coming to believe, inaccurate and dare I say naive. "*

Does this change anyone's mind re: whether or not Obama is incompetent or if he is doing it on purpose?

Personally, I think he's both: He really does want to bring America and WesternCiv down to some 'fair' socialist level with the rest of the world, AND he's just not very competent as a thinker and leader.

A constitutional republic r... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

A constitutional republic requires the rule of law, not of men.

Rule by decree and fiat are not hallmarks of free societies, but of dictatorships.

My first (real) post. Yay m... (Below threshold)

My first (real) post. Yay me.
First of all, I am Australian, hetero, male, and in a loving long term committed relationship with the mother of my son.
Secondly, I support gay marriage.
However, I think it verging on criminal for the President to just decide what laws he will or will not enforce. His to job is to execute laws enacted by the legislative and upheld by he judiciary. If he dosn't like a law, campaign to change it. I'm sure a lot of cops do not like enforcing gun control, abortion, or minor drug possession laws, but they still do because it is their job. Congress should consider defunding the AG and the white house as a message that he must do his job.

To understand the magnit... (Below threshold)

To understand the magnitude of Obama's action,

we just have to look at Bush.


This sets a dangerous precedent

Hardly. See above, and also:

"Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo advised the Bush administration that the Department of Justice would not enforce the U.S. criminal laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants."


However, I think it verging on criminal for the President to just decide what laws he will or will not enforce.

I will refer you to my first link.

By the way, law enforcement agencies pick and choose which laws to enforce all the time. Everything from the cop deciding to not give you a ticket, to Obama deciding to not prosecute members of the Bush administration.

It's also funny that for laws you don't like (abortion is legal) you scream "state's rights!", yet for laws you like (against gay marriage) you want the feds to be overlords.

"Throughout his presidency,... (Below threshold)

"Throughout his presidency, President Bush has regularly engaged in this practice of signing a bill and stating that he will not-enforce the provisions in it that he considers unconstitutional. But President Bush has not been alone. All recent Presidents of both political parties have engaged in this practice, although President Bush appears to have done so more often than his predecessors."


Well,a future republican... (Below threshold)

Well,a future republican president can now tell his or her Justice Department to not defend abortion rights because they feel it is unconstitutional.

Why future?

"enforcement of the FACE act by the DOJ which had averaged about 20 per year (with a high of 17 in 1997) under the Clinton administration fell to an average of 2 per year (with 4 being the highest yearly total) under the Bush administration."


I'm starting to think that ... (Below threshold)

I'm starting to think that Obama is mentally ill.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy