Comments about ‘Letter: Executive branch hasty’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 14 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
E Sam
Provo, UT

Nonsense. The executive branch has to collect taxes, and has a tax code to guide it, but still must make decisions involving the interpretation of the relevant laws. That's all that happened here.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Tryannical?
You have got to be kidding.

Where was this guy for 8 years of Bush/Cheney?!

More parroting of the radio.

....brahhhk!
Polly wanna cracker?

Ranch
Here, UT

"We have an executive branch that is all too willing to ignore the Constitution."

--- Says a Utahn who purposely IGNORES the Constitution's Equal Protection clause.

"I urge our governor and attorney general to push back against a federal government that is increasingly tyrannical."

--- And I urge the US President to PUSH BACK against a state whose residents are "increasingly tyrannical".

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Ah Ranch shows us how many cheer while the president and his minions abuse their offices. It is not the president's place to push back. It is in the court and the president is not a party in the case. Once the court decides, then it is the president's responsibility to execute (executive branch, get it?) and enforce the laws. It is never the president's role to interpret the law. That belongs to the SCOTUS.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

If we waited for every law's interpretation before acting, nothing would ever get done. Congress' skills at of delaying and postponing are at the Jedi Knight level.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Since every single person affected by the Governor's decision is required to file a Federal Income Tax return within the next 90 days or so, it makes perfect sense for the Federal Government to tell them how to do it.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

Yeah, the executive enforces the laws like the repeal of DOMA which means that the federal gov't is to recognize all marriages issued. Remember Utah's decision to give those couples their licenses even though the rights given to them would be put on hold with regards to the state? Having those marriages licenses triggers the national recognition.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

In the DOMA case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was required to recognize all same-gender marriages that were legally performed. Utah's same-gender marriages were all legally performed, thus the federal government cannot refuse to recognize them.

Also, if President Obama was actually a tyrant, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Savage, et al would be in concentration camps. They would not be free to vilify him day after day after day.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

Tyranny is like the Constitution. You only invoke it when you disagree with a conclusion. Please, no more hyperbole because every citizen should have the same rights despite of your attitude.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The executive branch administers the law of the United States. Since DOMA was struck down, the law of the United States does not distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. What was Holder supposed to do? NOT administer federal law?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Executive branch needs to know their Constitutional role... and live within those constraints.

It didn't start with President Obama, many Presidents have been nudging it more and more down this path in my lifetime... but Obama with his assumption that the brief Democrat Super-Majority gave him this right... took it to new heights. Now we just need to take it back a notch at a time.

===

President Obama (by his own statement) saw the Constitution as a "Fundamentally flawed document"... and a "document of negative liberties... telling the Government what they can NOT do"... He abhorred that and tried to ignore it and supersede it when it conflicted with what he thought was best for the country. Bush did the same thing. Clinton as well (to a lesser degree). And the rest also played their part in expanding the the power of the Executive branch and making the Legislative branch almost irrelevant (IMO).

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Utah's same-gender marriages were all legally performed, thus the federal government cannot refuse to recognize them."

It remains to be seen whether Utah's LGBT marriages were legally performed. If the US Supreme Court upholds Amendment 3, then those marriages, having been performed in violation of the Utah constitution, which will be given the full effect it deserves, will all be held to be void.

NOT legally performed.

Chilidog
Somewhere, IL

@2 bits, it was. The constitution as written by the founders allowed slavery and the 3/5 person rule. That was a huge flaw.

Chilidog
Somewhere, IL

@procuradorfiscal, doubtful. however it will be up to the courts to ultimately decide.

Chilidog
Somewhere, IL

"Another one bites the dust"

A federal Judge ruled that Oklahoma's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.

It's going to be very hard for the Appeals court to ignore the building consensus in the district courts.

Chilidog
Somewhere, IL

Another Federal Court has just ruled that Oklahoma's SSM ban is unconstitutional.

time for Utah to quit while it can and save some money.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

The executive branch cannot ignore the constitution. It is bound by the constitution.
The ignorance from the right wing is just embarrassing.

Confused
Sandy, UT

My question is this.... "IF" (and only IF) the 10th circuit court agrees with Utah and reverses the decision of Judge Shelby... What will Holder do then?

Will the IRS come back on these people and require them to pay what they should have paid?

This is why Holder should have kept out of it UNTIL a final decision is made by the courts.

It has nothing to do with the Executive Branch standing up for the constitution. but rather jumping the gun before a final decision is made.

Confused
Sandy, UT

Chilidog,
Did you see that the federal judge did AFTER his ruling? he issued a "Stay", if Judge Shelby would have done this, we would not have 1300 plus marriages in limbo.

I think this is going to end up in the hands of SCOTUS because there is such a wide interpretation of the 10th and 14th amendments.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Confused 8:42 a.m. Jan. 15, 2014

Chilidog,
Did you see that the federal judge did AFTER his ruling? he issued a "Stay", if Judge Shelby would have done this, we would not have 1300 plus marriages in limbo.

I think this is going to end up in the hands of SCOTUS because there is such a wide interpretation of the 10th and 14th amendments.

-------------------

If Utah's attorneys had asked for a stay, the Judge could have issued it. They didn't. The Judge could only act on the requests presented before him.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments