Thursday, February 24, 2011

Obama Now Sole Arbiter Of Law?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Apparently, he thinks he is. At least on the issue of marriage.

I'm wondering why we have courts if the President himself can decide which federal laws should be defended and which federal laws should not be defended by the executive branch.

Jim Campbell with the Alliance Defense Fund told the
Washington Times, "Typically when a law is challenged, the government has a duty to defend the law, and typically, they do so with the most vigorous possible defense. In this case we've seen executive branch officials refuse to do so."

President Obama has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas,
called the President's action, "A transparent attempt to shrink the Department's duty to defend the laws passed by Congress."

He said, "The vast majority of American people believe that the preservation of marriage between a man and a woman is critical to society's stability and in the best interest of American families."

Smith said yesterday, "It is not the role of the courts to redefine that institution [marriage] and impose it on American society. The people alone---through their elected representatives---have that role and responsibility. And the President and his administration are duty bound to defend those laws in court."

The President seems to be duty bound to nothing more than attempting to "remake" America.

Jordan Sekulow told CNS News, "My guess is that this was decided long ago to make it more difficult for members of Congress to obtain counsel to defend it", suggesting that the President orchestrated the timing, waiting as long as possible before abandoning his duty."

Obama's spokesman is telling the press that the President is "grappling" with what he believes about homosexual marriage. Last week the President was said to be "wrestling" with what he believes.

While the President is "grappling" and "wrestling" he is, in what seems to be a very calculated way, undermining not only the process, but marriage itself, allowing himself the opportunity to agree with those who defend marriage and those who seek to redefine and destroy it. He loves and agrees with everybody.

His spokesman also told the press, "The administration will do everything it can do to assist Congress if it so wishes to do that."

This is a time that I feel your US Representative and Senators need to hear from you on this matter. Please
contact them and tell them you strongly support DOMA. I understand Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are on board with the President and his abolishing of DOMA, however, contact their office anyway.

Please take a moment and be heard on this matter.

Thank you.

Be Informed. Be Vocal. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. This is the first time in my memory that a president has pushed back from his duty.

  2. Unbelievable, treasonous actions. The man thinks he is a king and the United States is his empire and he will decide everything himself (or with a union boss).

  3. President Obama's Justice Department has a constitutional obligation to defend federal law, even when he disagrees with the law. The Constitution requires that President Obama "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." By failing to defend DOMA, he is not satisfying this constitutional requirement. What will be the next law that he chooses not to enforce or uphold?

  4. Calling our federal marriage law "legally indefensible" ignores dozens of court decisions in the last few years upholding marriage as the union of husband and wife at the state and federal level.

    Here, for example, is what Maryland's high court ruled in 2007: "Marriage enjoys its fundamental status due, in large part, to its link to procreation. This 'inextricable link' between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members. ... Acceptance of this notion is found in the clear majority of opinions of the courts that have considered the issue."

  5. Washington's state supreme court in 2006 pointed to numerous standing Supreme Court decisions in upholding marriage as one man and one woman: "[A]s Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple." What is Obama and Holder thinking?

  6. Agreed, marriage is about procreation. How can a civilization exist if it stops procreating? And gays are just the tip of iceberg. Once a man has had a vasectomy, no marriage. Hysterectomy, same thing. In fact, anytime someone tests as infertile, we need to protect marriage and deny it for them.

  7. The president has no legal obligation to defend laws he/she deems unconstitutional. In fact, the president actually has an OBLIGATION to NOT defend laws he/she deems unconstitutional. And, finally, this is nothing new; Thomas Jefferson was the first president to refuse enforcement of an unconstitutional statute (the Sedition Act).

    Bash the president all you want, but when you don't stick to the truth, it tells us your only arguments are weak sound bites.

  8. Dear 1:46pm Feb 25 - DOMA was US law for 15 years. President Obama himself claimed he supported it, and actually defended it in court ... and now all of a sudden it is unconstitutional - "because I say so". When did it BECOME unconstitutional? and is this really the process you want the next Republican president to use to decide which laws HE is going to enforce? Whether you support DOMA or not, you better support the rule of law and the separation of powers, because the Democrats are not going to control the White House forever you know.

  9. Again, not the issue but not entirely your fault, much of the media has been very vague about the issues.

    This is only about section 3 of DOMA, the part that says the Feds must ignore some totally legal state issued marriage contract. That is what multiple courts have found unconstitutional, that is what the DOJ agrees is indefensible.

    Marriages a a state licensed contract, the Feds can't pick and choose which valid licenses they are going to acknowledge. Marriage is either a federal issue or a state right, it can't be both.

    The other sections of DOMA are not unconstitutional - states can't be forced to recognize an out of state license, etc. They will remain.

    So pick - do you want the Feds to take over issuing marriage licenses (as is actually done in many countries) or should the states be the ones to issue them and the Feds just respect all of the ones issued? Pick one but please be consistent, ok?

  10. Sadly, presidents don't always act in the role of a president.
    Let's continue to pray for him. May the Lord teach him his bounds. They are men and men are known to make mistakes. Sometimes we are so easily deceived. We need each other to help keep each other in the right way.

  11. I wonder if God would ever say something like "If you will abolish homosexual marriages, pornography, abortions, and gambling, I will show you how to get all the fossil fuel America needs for a robust economy, pass tax breaks for America's energy independence as long as the proceeds are invested in America's economy, and will help you bring down the price of fossil fuel to what it was in the '60's, after adjusting for inflation, and if your people in government will promote the gospel through their freedom of speech, I will...."

  12. President Obama himself claimed he supported it
    I think you are confusing his stance on man/woman marriage with DOMA. He has said he personally thought that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman but that he also knew that others could disagree (as in a number of states). He never said he was going to force his opinion about everyone else or ignore the will of the people to permit it.

    now all of a sudden it is unconstitutional - "because I say so". When did it BECOME unconstitutional?
    Again, not what's happened. 2 Federal courts have ruled that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional because the Feds can't pick and choose which totally legal contracts they are going to acknowledge. And on review the DOJ says 'yes, it is unconstitutional' and therefore neither the courts or the executive branch aren't going to defend that part of DOMA.

    If you've read since DOMA many people have said since it was written that this part wasn't legal, federal courts and the DOJ have now agreed and so it wouldn't even be ethical for them to defend 'illegal' law in court.

    Whether you support DOMA or not, you better support the rule of law and the separation of powers…
    Exactly! There are 3 branches of government - if the legislative branch passes an 'illegal' law neither of the other two (executive and judicial) have to or even should go along with it.

    It is because of the separation of powers that this is happening, the legislative branch did something not permitted by the constitution and both the judicial and executive branches have held that even the legislative branch must obey the constitution.

    The law is still being upheld, there just is no ethical argument the executive branch can make to support the law in court.

  13. I think the Feds ought to license marriages if that what it takes to defend marriage as between a man and women.

    Power has been taken away for the states many times when they couldn't get their act together.

    Craig in Lacey

  14. And there ya go Craig your mission is set for you. But until that time the states are still the ones that license marriages, and the feds don't. As such section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

    Reading the conservative law blogs turns out there are a number of times that the executive branch, both republican and democrat, have refused to defend federal statutes on constitutional grounds. (I can look them up for you if you're interested). As Joe pointed out this is just a 'separation of powers' issue that has come up before and will probably again.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.