Law firm won't defend marriage act for GOP - TheHill.com
As I sit in the Tampa International Airport awaiting the flight home from Florida I am catching up on the news of the world that I have been unplugged from since Wednesday. In reading The Hill I found this article. Now, I understand that people have their view on marriage and who it should include or not include. What troubles me is that a law firm that is under contract, not to mention our own Department of Justice department, is going to violate the contract based on pressure from outside lobby groups. My hope is that Congress will sue the law firm not holding up to their end of the contract and de-fund the Department of Justice until they uphold all laws enacted by the Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States.
On a separate issue, when will people realize that marriage is not a right and should be something that government has no involvement in. I understand that to unravel the sweater will be long a difficult but maybe, just maybe, Americans will wake up and see that we have allowed our government enact legislation that is unwarranted. It is time for those on both sides of the marriage-rights debate to put down their banners and work together. To work together to strip marriage from all aspects of government. For those of us that still want to marry another person leave that to the religious institutions or contract law.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find this thread odd.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, you have stated very clearly that you are a social liberal. Why then, would you ask the Justice department be de-funded until it "uphold all the laws enacted by congress"? But in the next breath you tell us all to work together to strip all controls over marriage from the government.
That makes NO SENSE WHAT-SO-EVER as an argument.
And as to the law firm, I commend them for taking what is likely a principled stance in defense of the constitution. And I'll wager they have a clause in the contract that allows them to breach the contract for just such reasons - they are lawyers after all.
Truman
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't agree with every law that is enacted by Congress, I do believe that the role of the DOJ is to uphold all the laws enacted by Congress. Unfortunately, the current DOJ, not to say past DOJ's didn't, is using the court system to push their own social agenda; that is wrong.
Now, that being said when it comes to marriage the government should not be part of the equation. And yes you are more than likely correct that an escape clause exists in the contract. I am curious why now they are playing the moral card?
On a side note, I notice you say nothing on the thread that I posted about Obama's budget plan...
ReplyDeleteViper,
ReplyDeleteHere's a way to think about this:
The DOJ reports to the AG which reports to the President. If the AG and President decide that a law is unconstitutional (as they have in this case) why would the DOJ continue to enforce it? They have asked the high court to expedite a ruling on the cases that are moving through the federal courts around this so that the law can be clarified.
If this was a case of the DOJ not enforcing the Obamacare bill while they wait for a SCOTUS ruling on it's constitutionality, would you be complaining? If not, why not? How is that different?
People should not be bound by the letter of the law the spirit should mean something too. If people see an unconstitutional issue, in good conscience they should not enforce it, even if that goes against the letter of the constitutional verbiage.
The constitution never intended tyranny of the majority with no recourse by the other branches of government. In fact, it's specifically structured to avoid that issue.
"I am curious why now they are playing the moral card?"
Because they have principles perhaps? I know the stereotype is that lawyers are bloodsucking parasites but it's entirely plausible they don't want to be on the wrong side of today's equivalent to the civil rights movement.
As to the budget thread, I didn't see the point.
Truman
ReplyDeleteRegardless of ones political ideological stance, the law is still the law and the job of the Solicitor General and the DOJ is to defend the United States laws.
Where was the law firms "principles" when the defended other laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President? DOMA was passed long ago and has been under attack since then. Why now the principled look?
It is the job of the Executive branch to enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is where the check-and-balance takes place not after the fact by the DOJ. The after the fact comes with the Court system to which the DOJ is to defend the laws signed by the Executive branch not the other way around.
Why don't you see the point of debating what President Obama set forth? How are we to have an open and honest debate if we don't put the same scrutiny to Obama's budget as we do Ryan's proposal? Or are you saying that your ideological stance prevents compromise?
ReplyDeleteViper,
ReplyDeleteI notice you didn't answer my question so I'll ask it again.
If this was the Obamacare bill foregoing enforcement pending SCOTUS review would you be demanding enforcement?
And are you aware that Presidents consistently use signing statements to effectively gut or limit enforcement of laws?
The world, and especially not the constitution, is not as black and white as you seem to want to make it out.
As to the lawfirms principles, I can't answer that. Perhaps you should write them a letter and ask them if you're that interested.
With regards to the Obama budget, I find your comment about my ideological stance preventing compromise more than a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
Truman
ReplyDeleteHow did I not answer your question when I wrote:
Regardless of ones political ideological stance, the law is still the law and the job of the Solicitor General and the DOJ is to defend the United States laws.
As for calling the kettle black - I can debate either side of the issue regardless of my stance. Can you do that? Plus, where compromise exists I am and have done so.