DOMA, Executive Branch Responsibilities, and Executive Inactivism

The post of the day goes to Dave Heughins.  Concerning the President’s take on Dum-er, DOMA.  Heh. Post from what he sent me

The week I decided to talk about Biblical marriage is the week the President decided to abandon it.  So he can pick and choose which laws he upholds?  Does the policeman or the judge get to choose which laws they enforce?  Maybe that red light is in the wrong place?
None of us are surprised, I think.  With defense such as Holder was giving for Doma, who needs plaintiffs?  The government that’s in my face about buying health insurance and energy saving light bulbs has no logical interest in where babies come from or who raises them?  As in future voters, tax payers, citizens – or not?  They don’t know where a healthy society comes from either – and I don’t mean bottled water!  I should say Obama’s conscience should be conflicted.  When you know what is right and do what is wrong – to be popular with the in-crowd – what does that make you? 

The Executive Branch’s responsibility, according to a basic understanding of the definition of the term “executive” is to execute (enforce) the law.  

Teddy Roosevelt could have chosen to ignore blue laws in NY State when Governor, or the cops could ignore traffic laws, or other executives could choose to ignore their Constitutions’ several clauses, to the detriment of two things 1) respect for their various constitutions 2) respect for the execution of their offices, which are empowered by those constitutions.  But they did not.  They executed and execute laws which were or are on the books and unpopular with criminals (speeding laws, blue laws, murder laws, theft laws, pornography laws), despite their personal feelings or “professional assessments,” because those are the laws of the land.  For us to set the precedent that a law does not need to be executed is to shirk office.

Also, in plain, unbastardized English, and without need for some “living, breathing” exegesis or interpretation (as only the Word of God is living and breathing), Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  It does not say that the President shall “take care to determine the constitutionality of the Laws,” or “take care to interpret and apply the Laws.” Interpretation of the constitutionality of a given law rests with the Judicial Branch, who judges the law against other laws and against the Constitution.  


3 responses to this post.

  1. David,

    READ THE ENTIRE LETTER FROM THE AG. The President has said that he will uphold the laws – using the words to continue to enforce the laws, but that he has instructed the AG to no longer defend the law. This is to cause a SCOTUS decision on whether or not the law is constitutional.

    In other words, you final paragraph is offensive and very wrong. This has been done before, by other Presidents.


  2. Good post David.


  3. Does the policeman or the judge get to choose which laws they enforce?

    Yes, they do.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: