Surprise, surprise! Obama's agenda, instead of being transparent, as he
promised, is now becomming clear. He preached class envy. He told us that some
"rich guy" would pay for government services. He gave out free cell
phones to his supporters. Now he tells us that he has the authority to compel
States to accept same-sex marriage.When will he ever take the time
to read the Constitution? When will he ever understand that the office of
President has less authority than the office of Governor BECAUSE the authorized
duties of the Federal Government are enumerated in one sentence, Article 1,
Section 8?He is not King. He is a temp worker who only thinks that
he is King. Take away his "private jet" until he at least understands
the limits of his authority.
@Mike RichardsI think you need to go back and learn how to read more
effectively.Where in this column does it say that President Obama
says "he has the authority to compel States to accept same-sex
marriage?" I don't see a direct quote from him on this topic in the
article, and the only statement attributed to him says "recognition for
same-sex unions should cross state lines." This is a "should"
statement, which expresses a desire for how things ought to be, in the view of
the speaker. If I say all students in the U.S. should learn to read before the
third grade, even if I were the president, this would not imply that I have the
authority to compel such an outcome.In the wake of yesterday's
decision, President Obama may have the authority to permit legally married
same-sex couples to retain their federal benefits if they move to a state that
does not recognize same-sex marriage, but he certainly does not have the
authority to compel states to accept such marriages. I suspect that will be an
issue for the Supreme Court in a future case.
@Skeptical --"he certainly does not have the authority to compel
states to accept such marriages. I suspect that will be an issue for the Supreme
Court in a future case."I have heard that a case challenging
section 2 (the section involving state-to-state recognition -- the "Full
Faith and Credit" clause) is already in the works. Dunno if that's
true. States already recognize **straight** marriages from one state to another
-- even in cases where one state has laws against that type of marriage (for
example, first cousin marriages) -- so I see no way for them to hold onto their
discrimination against gay marriages. Time Will Tell.@Mike --"Now he tells us that he has the authority to compel States to
accept same-sex marriage."Don't be ridiculous. He never
said any such thing.
This is where the slippery slope argument comes into full play. Obama has stated
on numerous occasions that he thought "gay marriage" should be decided
on the state level, that it is a states' issue. Are we to assume that he
has evolved yet again? Now that the Supreme Court has given him an inch, he
wants a mile.
DAKAR, Senegal — President Barack Obama on Thursday praised the Supreme
Court's ruling on gay marriage as a "victory for American
democracy" and said recognition for same-sex unions should cross state
lines.It is fitting that these remarks are being made in Africa
because the Obama government is more in line with African styled governments
than with the America we had for 2 and a half centuries. What a slam on American
@ The Skeptical Chymist,Where did Obama have the authority for
"Fast and Furious"? Where did he have the authority to spy on us
without a warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause that we had
committed a crime? Where did he have authority to fund Solyndra? Where did he
have authority to lend $2,000,000,000 to George Soros via Brazil? Where did he
have authority to spy on the AP to see who their sources were? Where did he
have authority to NOT build the fence that Congress had directed him to build?
Where did he have authority to use the IRS to harass political opponents and to
keep them from have the same tax exempt status that was given to his brother
when his brother created the "Barack H Obama" foundation?He
had no authority to do any of those things, but he did them anyway. His administration is scandal laden, yet some pretend that he knows nothing.
Does that mean that they're admitting that he is totally inept? If he
knows nothing, he's not doing his job and is guilty of nonfeasance. If he
does know, he's guilty of malfeasance.
Why didn't Obama consider it "a victory for American democracy"
when Californians used their constitutional right to vote and accept proposition
8? Apparently it's only a victory for democracy when people vote for things
that are in accordance to his agenda. Otherwise, he considers it a miscarriage
of justice or some such thing. It's the US Department of
Justice's legal obligation to judicially support federal laws passed by
Congress. And yet Obama went against that in directing his Attorney General to
not support DOMA before the Supreme Court. This is the first time I can remember
a U.S. president doing such a thing.Obama is setting a poor
precedent in picking and choosing which laws of the land he will support
according to his own personal political agenda. That truly is not being a good
leader who is supposed to represent all people... even those with opposing
viewpoints, especially when they already had legal standing before the court. He
is showing himself to be a leader with an extreme bias.Now he wants
federal law in this case to trump individual state laws. That would NOT be a
victory for American democracy.
@Mike RichardsI suspect that there are many examples where you and I
would agree that President Obama has abused his authority, as have just about
all of the preceding 8 or 10 presidents, and many others before them. However,
that was not the point of my comment.My point: If you want to vilify
President Obama, there are many issues you can point to (including some that you
mention) that are real. The idea that he claims to have the authority to compel
states to recognize same-sex marriage is not supported by anything he has said
and making this claim diminishes the credibility of everything else that you
Somewhat in Mike Richard's defense...In directing his
administration to comb through all federal statutes regarding this latest court
ruling, the president apparently would like to find a way to make all states
accept homosexual marriages, especially in regards to receiving benefits... even
those who currently have provisions in their state constitutions that recognize
only marriages between a man and a woman. If and when he does find that way,
then the word compel will come into play.I believe Mike was probably
using the term "authority to compel" in an anticipatory way.
@FDR fan"t is fitting that these remarks are being made in
Africa because the Obama government is more in line with African styled
governments than with the America we had for 2 and a half centuries. What a slam
on American democracy." the vast majority of African countries
have very harsh laws against homosexuality, abortion and use the force of law to
make their citizens follow religious dictates I would dare say they are far more
in line with the far right then with Obama.
@tators "Why didn't Obama consider it "a victory for American
democracy" when Californians used their constitutional right to vote and
accept proposition 8?"simple because as the courts found there
is and never has been a right to vote away others federal guaranteed rights and
@Tolstoy:Not so simple as you may think. It wasn't legally
established that this should be a federally guaranteed right until just this
week by the Supreme Court (and by just 1 vote, meaning it's now legal but
still very controversial). When proposition 8 was initiated and
petitioned for, it was given clearance by the state of California to continue as
a legal democratic procedure that could be voted on... and was. Any time that
process happens, it should be considered a victory for American democracy...
unless, apparently, it champions a cause that is against your political
left-wing ideology. Another case in point. Illegal immigrants
currently don't have any legal binding right to the same federally
protected rights and protections as citizens do. Someday, they might. But unless
and until that is later determined to be otherwise, then their current status is
still a binding case of legal American democracy in work.
Even though most African countries do have harsh laws against homosexuality, as
Tolstoy pointed out, a possible reason for Obama making his political remarks on
this subject in Africa is because over there he is still regarded as a hero...
one of their own, as evidenced by the "Welcome home" posters his many
admirers there had. He could announce almost anything over there and not
encounter any controversy.He's no longer nearly so popular here
in America as he is there. In fact, with all the covert activity (NSA, IRS,
etc.) on American citizens (recently brought to light) by his self proclaimed
"most transparent administration in history", there seem to be a growing
number of former supporters who would no longer vote for him if the election was
held all over again today. And for good reason.
@tatorsProblem with you reasoning, simply because the government officials
at the time gave it the go ahead does not mean it did not violate the federal
constitutional rights which you do not get to simply vote away Utah and many
states have become notorious for passing laws that are later struck down or
never enforced because the violate federal laws and/or constitution.
@tators Birther conspiracies, really?
Arizona1,why did you think you could believe what BO said when he said it
should be decided at the state level?WHATEVER gave you the idea he
is at ALL trustworthy?