[Obama moves to end DOMA]
It is not just the Defense of Marriage but the immigration laws, the voter intimidation of white voters and a few I can't think of. What other laws are they not enforcing that we don't know about? Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with? Are we living under a dictator?
65 comments
*cough* the Patriot Act *cough*
image
Anyway, this is pretty standard fare for fundies, i.e. pick and choose.
Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?
Why, yes, in fact we have had just that...
image
image
image
image
image
Why would a dictator vote to increase the rights of the people?
Are the members of RR high or something, because I cannot think of anything that would make "more rights = dictatorship" seem even remotely sensible.
Correction to Brianisha: The so-called "Defense" of Marriage Act was written to PREVENT gay people from having the right to marry. In other words, it was "defending" marriage from.....people who want to get married.
@Raised by Horses --
Do you know what keeps poking me as the most obnoxious bit about the "PATRIOT" Act? It's not even consistently enforced. The definition of "terrorism" it uses includes all acts of violence intended to produce a particular political outcome and/or to intimidate a particular segment of the civilian population. Now, if that were all that the Act in question did, I wouldn't have such a problem with it -- but in terms of enforcement, it doesn't even do what it says. By the law's own definition, acts of racist and homophobic violence are terrorism . And while a number of acts that the U.S. government (under both Bush II and Obama) has considered "acts of terrorism" are bullshit, I'd actually support a policy of recognizing that acts of racist, heterosexual-supremacist, cis-supremacist, male-supremacist, etc. violence are acts of terrorism (i.e. acts which are both acts of assault and/or murder aimed at their immediate targets and threats and acts of intimidation towards the population of which the immediate targets are perceived as members). Of course, both Congress and the White House (under both Bush II and Obama) have read into the PATRIOT Act the rider that acts of violence are only to be considered "terrorism" if the targets include straight white cis-gendered Christian men. (OTOH, acts which aren't violent may still be considered acts of terrorism if the government can in any way tie you to someone they don't like. So the torture and murder of a transgender woman isn't an act of terrorism, but providing clean socks to someone who later decided to endorse the violent overthrow of the government is .)
"the voter intimidation of white voters"
Mmm hmm...you gonna cite some actual documented examples, or just continue to make shit up?
"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?"
Pretty much all of them. It's kind of what politicians do.
Aside from everything else that has already been said:
You can start with the Louisiana Purchase for the Executive Branch exceeding its authority, and you probably would miss something earlier.
Laws have always had opportunistic and arbitrary enforcement. That also includes laws that are technically but not legally unenforceable and are applied randomly. Think of the ratio of people who speed on the highway to those who receive a ticket for one example.
Dictatorship? No. We live under a hierarchical tyranny with enough fringe benefits to make it marginally acceptable. The alphas use a skillful array of misdirection techniques to blur their privileged place in our society, and the ever-widening gulf between their lifestyle and the middle class. One example: film and sports celebrities are the faux elite. They are the pretty monkeys we have all been taught to look at.
If you're posting on Rapture Ready, you are already too deep in denial to be reached by any of that information, or you're a troll.
Uh, that whole "intimidation of white voters" thing was made up by Hannity and Co. at Faux News. The so-called New Black Panthers was just two guys, and they were at the polling place not to intimidate white voters, but to protect (albeit badly) black voters from intimidation, because blacks had been targeted there before.
And the dictator who ignored laws he didn't agree with was Bush.
Someone else who can't stand the idea of democracy. A president is elected who he doesn't like, and a law might be repealed that he likes, so, of course, he's "living under a dictator".
Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?
Sure. It happens all the time, especially since Reagan, who is credited with having expanded the concept of the "unitary president". G. W. Bush, in particular, took that to mean that Congress has practically no say whatever in how the President does his job, so that any law passed that requires almost anything of the President (e.g., actually enforcing it) can be ignored by the President.
@Creedence Leonore Gielgud, a strong argument can be made that President Taft didn't ignore any laws, including those he didn't agree with. Without going into too many details, it was his enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that pissed off Teddy Roosevelt to the point that TR formed the Progressive Party and tried to run again.
"What other laws are they not enforcing that we don't know about?"
Most of them, I would guess. There's some pretty stupid ones on the books. And I don't mean "stupid" as in I don't agree with them, I mean, "what the hell were they smoking when they passed that ?" kind of laws.
"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?"
Did you miss the entire previous Administration?
"Are we living under a dictator?"
Apparently you missed Bush's famous quip about not minding living under a dictatorship--so long as he's the dictator.
Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?
About 3 years ago (PATRIOT Act). And back in the 80's under Reagan (Iran-Contra ring a bell?). And back in the 70's (Watergate). All Republican presidents.
Are we living under a dictator?
Not since about 3 years ago.
Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?
Yes, their names were George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon...
Congress included a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to make liquor illegal, then they repealed it. The Supreme Court decided that it's previous position on segregation was wrong (and you have no idea how big of a deal it is to get the Supreme Court to go against legal precedent). Laws change, deal with it.
"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with? "
Basically every president in recent memory. Your buddy Bush Jr (and your messiah Reagan to a lesser extent) took it to a ridiculous level. To be fair, though, neither Bush Sr nor Clinton seemed very interested in limiting their own executive power. The fact Obama doesn't shouldn't shock or disgust you any more than those other presidents being the same way.
When someone you like takes a massive power grab, that same power is available when the next person takes over, even if you don't like that individual. You folks need to keep this in mind. With you and your Tea Party friends organizing under the pretense of "smaller government", one would think you'd already be keenly aware of this.
Your president is a policeman?
So this makes all your police forces, the CIA, the FBI and the whole Military unnecessary. Just think of all the money that will be saved - oh, and massive unemployment of law enforcers and Army, Navy etc.
As to the final question Joseph asks, it is self-answering, although the idiot doesn't realise it. Joe, if you were living in a dictatorship you would already be dead - if you were lucky.
"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with? Are we living under a dictator?"
Ah, delicious irony. Where were you while Bush was in charge again?
As for enforcing unknown rules and ignoring others, would you care to use reality next time?
@ Mudak
I wouldn't say that the DoP is unconstitutional. Not only is no one forced to pray, but it is up to each individual who to pray to. Allah, Yahweh, FSM, its all good. The DoP is more like a "wish these folks luck" than anything.
Joseph here is an idiot, however.
"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with? '
No and we never were. Even Bush wasn't a dictator.
"When the president does it, it's not illegal."
Richard M. Nixon, interview with David Frost
It is not just the Defense of Marriage but the immigration laws, the voter intimidation of white voters and a few others I can't makeup right now. FIXED
Giggle Faux news giggle - hadn't seen that one yet.
@Xotan
So this makes all your police forces, the CIA, the FBI and the whole Military unnecessary"
Actually, the police, CIA, FBI, and Military are all in control of the USA's Executive Branch, that is, the President. It's his job to enforce the laws and decisions passed by Congress and the Courts.
What Obama's doing is not forcing the Justice Department to defend DOMA in the court system. He's not striking down the act or refusing to enforce it outright, he's just stopped defending it.
In response to your question, yes, plenty of presidents have ignored laws they didn't agree with. George W. Bush the 2nd ring any bells?
Also, nice job injecting racism in there, asshole. DIAF. Thanks. :)
Pretty much every pres. ignored some laws at one time or another during their term.
And you apparently don't care about the Constitution which DOMA violates. (But not in a gay way, so don't worry).
"the voter intimidation of white voters"
you know, the only voter intimidation stories I could find were "vote Rethuglican or else". When race was mentioned at all, it was "good ol' Amurican patriot" whites intimidating people with brown skin.
Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with? image
@ Kevin Klawitter
You seem totally to have missed the irony, sadly.
And quite apart, if anyone were really seriously interested in the defence of marriage, the first item on the legislative agenda should surely be the suppression/removal from statute of divorce. To fail to do this makes the whole concept of DOMA risable.
I'm not sure about the American system, but where I come from there is a separation of powers. The executive cannot interfere with the prerogatives and rights of the judiciary, and the judiciary fiercely defends its independence of the executive and all its branches, including the Department of Justice. In fact, the idea of the executive telling the judiciary what to do would be repugnant to the constitution, and any attempt to do so would precipitate a constitutional crisis which the government would lose.
When a law is unconstitutional, it is automatically invalid.
@Greater Good
"I wouldn't say that the DoP is unconstitutional."
"Not only is no one forced to pray..."
"... but it is up to each individual who to pray to. Allah, Yahweh, FSM, its all good."any god? Or you believe in a non-personal god who does not respond to prayer? It's then obvious that your religion is not being "established" and a different one is, which violates the First Amendment.
" which The DoP is more like a "wish these folks luck" than anything."
Funny, so far, the POTUS seems very conscious of the Constitution, which by far outweighs any law. Our most recent set of Republican politicoes could learn a lesson or two from him...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
