Obama has decided not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act – because he feels it is unconstitutional. The article said:
“President Obama decided the Justice Department no longer would defend DOMA after concluding the law was unconstitutional, administration officials said”.
Obama already refuses to enforce immigration law, and there is strong evidence that he has refused to prosecute discrimination laws when white folks were the victims. So it is crystal clear that Obama believes he has the right to pick and choose which laws he enforces.
It seems to me that if Obama can unilaterally decide that a law is unconstitutional – a function of the Supreme Court, last time I checked – then I guess that means we don’t have to obey or enact ObamaCare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, and which is obviously unconstitutional to anybody with a brain. In fact, a number of states, including Texas and Alaska, are refusing to implement ObamaCare for this reason.
Continuing this train of thought a bit further, Obama has no more legal right to rule on the constitutionality of a law than I do. Therefore, apparently, I have just as much right as he does to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. So, Obama destroys the concept of rule of law: if I can decide which laws I think are constitutional, then I can pretty much do anything I want, can’t I? The technical name for this is “anarchy”.
This causes me to wonder what constitutional authority the President has to illegally declare moratoriums on drilling for oil. Or try to mandate cap and trade tax through the EPA, bypassing the congress.
When any individual, right on up to the President, usurps the authority of the Supreme Court, well, it opens up one really big can of worms, doesn’t it?