DOMA not defended

[johnwilliamson062]

This issue is unfolding to be a total disaster for the US government. This will leave the executive in power at the moment the right to basically veto any SCOTUS case concerning a US law, effectively lending a retroactive veto not susceptible to an override to any law ever passed. The implications on the balance of the three branches is IMMENSE and it is not being addressed.


Here is an article summarrizing the issues more eloquently than I can manage.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/the-imperial-presidency/71632/

No matter what your stance on DOMA, you should be against this unprecedented procedural undercutting of branch balances.

 

[thallub]

What does DOMA have to with guns?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Civil rights is more than just strictly about firearms. As the forum description notes: "Discussions may range from the Second Amendment to other equally important civil rights and the Laws that affect them."

But, in this case, and in the linked blog, I'm seeing FAR too many if's, maybe's could be, what ifs, if they decide to, could possibles to make this a viable subject for discussion at this time.

No one knows right now whether this will be a tactic that will be adopted moving forward. It could be. It could also set off some nasty court battles between the legislative and executive branches in that I could see Congress suing the Presidential administration to force a defense of various laws.

Possible? Who knows.

That's another set of big ifs.

As this topic unfolds we can certainly revisit it. So, I'm going to close this.

Another reason for closing this right now is that I want to make sure that people don't start debating the crux of the legislation from a gay/anti-gay standpoint. That would truly be off topic for TFL.