DISQUS

Ben · 5 months ago

Were exactly in the Constitution does it give the President the ability to sign a law and then ignore it. If I recall correctly, the SCOTUS struck down the line-item veto, so I can't imagine the executive signing statements would hold up.

rf7777 · 5 months ago

What a fraud this guy is turning out to be.

Obama: Yes We Con!

Indigo · 5 months ago

The light at the end of the tunnel is an on-coming train.

caphillprof · 5 months ago

It seems to me that the DLC "Republican lite" Democrats have hired trolls to haunt this site. Too many commenters seem in denial as to Obama's betrayal of the gay community in particullar and the progressive community in general. I'm thinking this folk are not clueless but rather well paid.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

huffpo comments are about 20-1 in favour of King BO. Crap... i should be reading the rest of my Gruenwald. Time to get off the internets.

Chris From Maine · 5 months ago

for Obama, it seems that protecting bankers > gay rights.

And what exactly did he oppose? Telling the world bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards, and requiring the treasury to report to congress on the IMF and World Bank activities.

Nice to see Obama has his priorities. /sigh.

davidkingofall · 5 months ago

My understanding of this matter is that the parts of this law the president objects to require him to negotiate internationally from a position which Congress is dictating. That seems to fly in the face of the enumerated powers of Congress and the Executive in the Constitution. Unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I agree with the president's position.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

hmmm... how about going to court to challenge the law? Those damn checks and balances are such a pain in the ass.

You are right, powerful people should be able to just ignore laws that they disagree with.

condew · 5 months ago

If congress was serious and not grandstanding, congress should take the matter to court. But I suspect they know they violated the constitution and won't want the Supreme Court to confirm their error.

davidkingofall · 5 months ago

I agree.

davidkingofall · 5 months ago

The best constitutional approach to the matter would be for the president to veto the bill and try to negotiate a compromise with Congress which does not include unconstitutional language. I think signing statements are themselves illegal.

But, I stand by my assertion that Congress cannot dictate foreign policy positions to the president.

And the president did not ignore the law, he said he would enforce the law except where it intrudes on his Constitutional prerogatives. That's not ignoring it.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

How do you figure that he is not selectively enforcing laws? You are giving republican (and now democratic) logic/doublespeak. He is NO better than bush.

Just because you and Obama think that a portion of the law is unconstitutional does not make it so. Neither of you is the judge on this case. This is all about the powerful in this country deciding which laws they want to follow... so much for a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Those words mean nothing anymore... they probably never did mean anything.

davidkingofall · 5 months ago

Wow, man.

I understand your frustration and even anger at President Obama, and prior administrations, and even just at those who hold and exercise power. I disagree with a number of President Obama's actions so far, and with most of the previous president's actions. But we're on a site which encourages rational and polite discourse, and attacking me personally is not advancing your argument.

Since we both come to this site, I would imagine we share a good number of opinions and positions. Just because we disagree on this one matter does not mean we cannot have a productive dialogue.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

can you tell me how i personally attacked you?

davidkingofall · 5 months ago

You accused me of using doublespeak, and insinuated I was engaging in "republican" behavior, which I took to be derisive. Did I misconstrue your meaning? If so, I apologize.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

doublespeak... look at your statements... Also i said the behavior is Republican and Democratic... and that it is wrong regardless of political affiliation.

I did not attack you personally.

davidkingofall · 5 months ago

Again, if I misunderstood, then I apologize.

But it was the fascists in 1984 who used doublespeak, and accusing me of using doublespeak seems to me to be accusing me of fascism.

If you weren't attacking me, then maybe you need to pay a little more attention to the loaded language you are using.

Nothing you have said here persuades me to change my beliefs. And I have nothing more to say about this matter.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

Doublespeak is using political ideological language to justify something that is wrong. "yes torture is wrong but we must defend freedom" would be an example of doublespeak.

It aint just facists who use this method of communication.

davidkingofall · 5 months ago

You're wrong.

Doublespeak is the use of language which is opposite of its actual meaning.

For instance, the protagonist in 1984, Winston Smith, is tortured in the Ministry of Love. And the constant war in 1984 is conducted by the Ministry of Peace.

Precise language is important in debate, jimfromthefoothills.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

You may need to study 1984 a little deeper than Cliff's Notes. ;)

rmichels · 5 months ago

Jim said to himself as he looked into the mirror.

ezpz · 5 months ago

OT and sorry for the interruption, but I wanted to see how small this gets.
:)

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

please won't someone think of the children?

rmichels · 5 months ago

LOL

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

"And the president did not ignore the law, he said he would enforce the law except where it intrudes on his Constitutional prerogatives. That's not ignoring it."

This is doublespeak. He is ignoring laws he deems unsavory.

bobbicw · 5 months ago

Light at the end of the tunnel? Don't look now...but I think it's a train...

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Don't worry, we're safe. No one has been maintaining the train tracks for years and I doubt if they're really are any tracks left from no infrastructure. ;-).

dula · 5 months ago

When it comes to anti-Gay laws, Obama is quick to say he needs to follow the law to the letter. When it comes to pro-labor legislation is this new bill, he creates a signing statement so he doesn't have to follow the law. The man is an anti-labor homophobe...he should have just run as a Republican.

libertydan · 5 months ago

And a warmonger...

psychodrew · 5 months ago

Nothing those assholes do surprises me anymore.

Dateline_Molly · 5 months ago

The only answer is to run a progressive in 2012. By that time, it will be obvious to everybody except the woefully ignorant and stupid that Obama is a complete fraud and his policies will have further unraveled any semblance of what this country once stood for, and what we need.

I used to believe nobody could be as bad as Bush. Everything Bush touched turned to shit. Everything. Obama is going to match Bush and probably EXCEED him in his shit-touching "skills."

We have 3 1/2 years left of this abomination of a "leader." Sickening.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

What sickens me is that he has done an 180 on just about everything he said he was going to fix, from the wars, to gay rights, to actually trying the prisoners at GitMo. He's now trying to eliminate the single payer health care package. Did he turn instantly into a republican on January 20th with the oath of office? Until he proves differently, he's nothing but a deceiver and a liar.

jimstoic · 5 months ago

At this point, I hate to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but the provision DOES seem like an unconstitutional usurpation of executive authority by the legislative branch. And we don't know what kind of signing statement he would have used if he'd signed DOMA (or if he'd have signed it).

I think Obama does not believe the Constitution protects the rights of LGBT people on the basis of sexual orientation of gender identity. Obviously, the DOMA brief says as much. I think that's an honest interpretation of the Constitution, but I also think that the best course for a president who agrees with the cause but doesn't agree that a constitutional challenge is the way to address it, is to not say anything at all. Certainly Scalia and Thomas would present that perspective if given the chance.

dula · 5 months ago

If you replace Gays with Blacks or Jews regarding the laws against Gay Marriage, would you still feel "that's an honest interpretation of the Constitution"? How about if LBJ remained silent during the Civil Rights Movement For Blacks Only?

jimstoic · 5 months ago

The Constitution is not always right and good. It was not, as enacted, free of racial bias. The 13th and 14th Amendments were required to give African Americans the same Constitutional rights as everyone else. The 24th Amendment was enacted to help ensure those rights were available.

I'm not saying I agree that the Constitution doesn't protect people on the basis of sexual orientation; I'm just saying that a Constitutional scholar could validly hold that view. Presumably someone like Obama, if he did hold that view, would support a Constitutional amendment to extend Constitutional protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

dula · 5 months ago

...and if he did support an amendment to extend protections he should do so silently?

jimstoic · 5 months ago

No! He should say what he thinks and then stand up for it.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Well, he told us without mincing words what he thought about us having equal rights with DADT and civil unions. ( still bigoted about equal marriage rights ) when he was running for office. Now, all of a sudden, he has short-term memory loss and the brief reads like a bigot wrote it. ( an ignorant bigot, I might add. ) Perhaps, we should read the fine print on everything he says for the real meaning of his words. Or he simply lied to us.

Zorba · 5 months ago

All together now, kids: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." I'm not really suggesting that Obama is as bad as Bush, but did anyone really think that he (or almost any Democrat) would NOT use many of the same tactics as the previous administration? Secrecy, lack of transparency, outright lies, not enforcing laws he doesn't like, etc, etc, and so forth. Yes, we need a true progressive.

libertydan · 5 months ago

Shoulda picked Kucinich!

Zorba · 5 months ago

I did originally support Dennis; I've always liked him. He didn't get very far, though.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

I did as well.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

I may write in his name whether he is running or not.

dula · 5 months ago

It would be one thing to use the new Executive powers created by Bush in order to reverse Bush policies. But Obamination is using these unconstitutional powers to attack Labor Rights...how shocking for a filthy Centrist Democrat.

timncguy · 5 months ago

it was said during the last administration by many political analysts that no future president would willingly give up the powers that Bush/Cheney "created" for the executive branch.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Bush beat the path and the lazy democrats are now following it like sheep. I agree, we need to run a real progressive against Obama. He isn't the only choice we have incumbent or not. Perhaps, some of the evil Obama has perpetuated can be rescinded by a more progressive president. He has been such a major disappointment to me and I bought into his "Yes we can" hype. Boy, did I learn my lesson. It may be too late for my support again unless he starts fulfilling his promises.

Glenning · 5 months ago

Yes, well, Bob Herbert at the NYT wrote an exasperated column last week calling out the Obama admin for its secrecy & torture defense, neither of which is legal, both of which Obama quickly became good at. So when the DOMA defense came along I was shocked & horrified, but shocked & horrified on top of the creeping disgust I'd been feeling at Obama's closing the door on prosecuting (or even investigating) the allegations of totally illegal torture. Not to mention the growing frustration with Obama's silence (& disdain?) as the military careers of good people are callously destroyed over nothing.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

How can one expect a person such as Obama, who has never had to serve his country in uniform or learn the discipline required to be in the service, honor the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines or realize he is ruining the careers of these soldiers due to his inaction when he could do something to temporarily stop the loss of these valuable personel.

I also, point a finger at Congress who have done nothing and not a peep has been voiced about this from them. One can only conclude that they just don't care.

OregDon · 5 months ago

During the campaign, someone stated that **power** achieved by one executive will not be given up by the next one.

Politicians **never** relinquish power. Seems like that may be being proved.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

If Pelosi had any balls she would put impeachment on the table. I can't believe that i donated money to this asshole.

rmichels · 5 months ago

This is silly. It's a long road from disappointment to impeachment and yet you already think you're there.

I agree with those who have pointed out that the president's signing statement simply reminds Congress of the constitutional separation of powers. There's no need to go to court over something that is clearly not in Congress' realm of enumerated powers. Congress could put into a bill that the president must eat Cheerios every morning and the appropriate response from the president, assuming that the rest of the bill was deemed good and vital and that he signed it into law, would be to simply inform Congress that what he ate for breakfast was not within their powers to decide, thank you very much.

Justified frustration over Obama's failure to date to support gay rights loses its focus and punch when it fuels childish anger and dramatic fantasies of betrayal. Stick to pushing our agenda, hold the administration accountable for what they've said and haven't said but if you need to throw a little fit, go punch a pillow or something. Geez.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

Yes, how silly of me to expect a president to follow the laws. Our system of government is so archaic. If he does not like a law then VETO it. If he gets overridden then sue congress. For god sakes, the Federal courts are lap dogs for the administration in any case. If wise men like Obama and Bush get to interpret the law then why have ANY laws? Lets just have a king.

Obama is another bush. There is no difference between the two. I wanted Bush impeached so if that decision was proper then why should Obama get my support? Because he is black? Because he is a Democrat?

condew · 5 months ago

I've been reading Americablog for years; and while I agree that the DOMA brief was a betrayal, it is not an aspect of every other issue. I know I am not in the gay central audience this blog is aimed at, but mostly I like your politics. Even so, I think Americablog has lost perspective, and I enjoy reading it less and less.

bluebear · 5 months ago

This topic has nothing to do with DOMA, so by all means, explain how "perspective" has been lost here. We were told only a week or so ago that Obama MUST enforce the Law Of The Land . . .or does that bromide only apply when gays are being discharged from the military and Obama refuses to sign stop-loss orders?

condew · 5 months ago

Exactly, so why was it conflated with DOMA in the scond paragraph?

caphillprof · 5 months ago

The DOMA brief is to Obama what "peace in our time" was to Chamberlain. He's pretty well screwing Democrats on every progressive issue that comes down the pike. DOMA is the canary in the coal mine. You ignore it at your peril.

nicho · 5 months ago

And what was the "perspective" that was lost exactly? I've been reading John's stuff since it was just an email disto list -- and I don't see any change of so-called perspective.

I'm really suspicious of all these people who stop by to tell him he's gone off the track, because John has been pretty consistent for years.

condew · 5 months ago

The blog is now about 3/4 about how betrayed everybody feels about DOMA, and even in unrelated topics like this, there is a digression to try to tie it to DOMA. So this blog has not only lost perspective, it is bordering on obsession. It is starting to sound like the guy who didn't overturn DOMA is worse than the guy who signed it into law, and that's bogus.

dula · 5 months ago

In regards to Gay Rights, Obama is as cowardly as the guy who signed it into law...and with his stance on FISA, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo, secrecy policies, Wall St, signing statements, etc. he is becoming as bad as the guy who followed the guy who signed DOMA into law. The last straw to any thinking Progressive will be his completely taking Single-Payer off the table...we'll see.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Well don't blame the messenger ( AmericaBlog ) as we all are our own free agents and get to say what we think. Not all the viewpoints are embraced by John, Joe or Chris.

Arouete · 5 months ago

Wake up! You are all getting it wrong! While you sleep and carp and bitch and moan you miss the forest for the trees. You are being duped and bamboozled by your own activists . And, aside from the few we read here, our activists have become toothless yapping lap dogs and mere sycophantic cocktail part activists.

Wise up! See “The Big Chill: Why Obama Must Defend DOMA as He Works For Repeal” at http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/the-bi...

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

well dang... we all suck! This is going to be tricky... if i agree with you that we are ALL getting it wrong, am i still wrong?

What a burden to be the ONLY person in the whole wide world who is getting it right! You Sir are magnificent! Kudos!

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

I read your blog. First let me congratulate your excellent spelling! Second, with your logic we would still have slavery.

Arouete · 5 months ago

Well it is unfortunate that you did not comprehend what you read.

jimfromthefoothills · 5 months ago

Perhaps I did not comprehend it because it was so brilliantly written.

Of course there is another possibility... it may be incomprehensible.

I have read a bunch of self-indulgent crap in my day but your blog takes the cake. The unibomber's manifesto was like it was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes (no not the guy from Green Acres, that was Oliver Wendell Douglas and not the porn star, that was John Holmes) when compared to your nonsensical ramblings.

Arouete · 5 months ago

Apparently it's to much to ask that you come out in the open to stand in the light and tell us on what basis you arrive at at such a conclusion.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Yes, how ironic to watch Bush over-step his authority to get what he wanted accomplished, and to watch Obama afraid to even use the powers of authority he legally has to accomplish anything. He seems to prefer to pass the buck to Congress then do something. There you have the major difference between republicans and democrats.

I will never vote for a republican but I may never vote anymore for a democrat either.

HelenRainier · 5 months ago

Hi Butch! I agree with you. Up until 2008 I have voted in every Presidential election. After 2008 and what I see happening now, I seriously doubt I will ever vote again.

I don't even remember when the last time was I voted for a Republican for President. I have for some "local" positions. Last election I didn't vote locally for Ds or Rs but instead chose to vote for anyone who WASN'T a D or R.

I now seriously ask "What for? They're all the same."

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Hey Helen,
You jogged my mind and I had to think for a moment that indeed, I have voted for a republican before. He is a moderate republican , Sam Reid, Secretary of State here in Washington State. He is the only one I have voted for in my life. He does a good job and does not play the democratic/republican politics that seems to be the guerre du jour we continue to see on a national and local level. Unless he proves to be otherwise, I will continue to vote for him but there are none I would vote for in the pool of republicans that are presently pretending they have the public's interests at heart.

I think you should vote just to show you exist but you might consider writing in your favorite person, whether they are running or not. It could even be Mickey Mouse. ;-)

HelenRainier · 5 months ago

Hi Butch!

I have done "write-in" votes when I have believed the stakes weren't as serious. Since the 70s though I have believed the "stakes" were too serious to do a write-in.

The last time, though, I wrote in was when Bush the Elder was running against Dukakis. I wasn't impressed with either and I ended up writing in John Madden and Pat Summerall. At least when Madden and Summerall said something I KNEW what the hell they were talking about!

How many ways can you understand Madden saying "Boom, pow" or "You have the leapers and the divers"?

Hope it's nice down your way -- it's a beautiful day up here in Tacoma!

Butch1 · 5 months ago

It's cloudy, looking like rain, though you know as well as I, that we haven't had any significant rain in weeks. Enjoy your day!

arnie parker · 5 months ago

I have read the U.S. Constitution over and over and I'll be damned if I can fine one word which can be misinterpeted, stretched, distorted in any fashion to imply that two men or two women have the right to be lawfully married!

From the beginning of time, a man and a women have shown their love and commitment to each other by joining their God given, special unique sex organs together to make love and create life and from this special bond, MARRAGE was born!

When two men or two women can make love (or what ever they may call it) and create the miracle of life, then I will agree that they can share the "Holy Bond of Marrage"!!

A man with a Sheep can have sex, a women with a Dog can have sex, should they be allowed to marry???

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Some people should never be allowed to procreate because of their stupidity. I hope you haven't injected your idiocy into our gene pool!

Thanks for the sermon. Did you hear this at your Talibangelical Church this morning and rush home to share this retarded "message" with us?

Again, you're an idiot. Be gone before someone drops a house on you!

Tell me, oh knowledgeable one, what does the Constitution say about marriage? I want you to quote it for me since you claim to have read it.