The Obama administration could have prevented this whole mess. Quit trying to spin this as some great ploy. The ship is sinking because there is a hole in the bottom. It’s not for ventilation as the deckhands suggest. FYI, he just rescheduled his address and had his head handed to him.

Where are the adults in this administration. Either they forgot to check the calendar or they don’t know parliamentary rules. Neither excuse provides much comfort. The latest news is the jobs speech has been moved. So here is where we now stand. Obama gets his head handed to him. The Republicans are gloating and reading his pre-released speech, which they will whack like a pinata in their debate. Then the very last thing is the president will get up and try to rally the dead troops. Someone wake me up.

With all due respect, I could go chat it up with people who think like me and you likewise. I believe that people who search for truth, keep company with those who think differently. I do not wish to crash your party. I have overstayed my welcome.

PS
When I refer to ‘style’ I was kindly referring to belittling words (crap, not sentient etc), when referring to others opinions. I may not always agree but I try (not perfect) to be respectful of others opinions.

I am not here to defend either party. It just happens the current president is a Democrat. It just seems like a dangerous precedent and is gaining popularity with each successive administration.

My hypotheticals are meant to illustrate our solutions today may work against us tomorrow.

Your style is a bit heavy handed, but you make some good points. A couple of questions.

1. If you decide to “not defend the constitutionality”, you must believe it unconstitutional. Who decided Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional? The Second Circuit hasn’t ruled yet.

2. Why would the Justice department refuse to defend the law in the Second Circuit court but continue to defend it in any other court? AG Holder makes this very point in paragraph two. All defense across all Section 3 litigation will cease “pursuant to the Presidents instruction”. Isn’t this the definition of unilateral?

3. Why must we ALWAYS talk about Bush? (he’s gone)

4. Lastly, should a future president be allowed to NOT execute the insurance mandate of ObamaCare?

Another example. A Republican president rolls into office in 2012 (could happen) an decides ObamaCare is unconstitutional. He calls off the Justice Department. That also sends the message to all cabinet levels that the law is opposed by the president. Do you really think they are going to work against the presidents wishes? Not if they want any proximity to himher or the political party machinary. The president can effectively kill passed law without any checks. Both parties will abuse the system (and have) and it is equally destructive.

The point is the political pendulum will swing. Do you want some future Republican president calling off the defense of a law that is near and dear to you. And don’t try and parse defending and executing the law to fit an ideology. What if I decide to ignore the law you are executing? Then what? You ignore me and you are not executing anything or you try and compel me, in which case your are defending the law. They are synonymous from a legal standpoint. Case law 101.

OK, Newt aside. Do you want President Romney making these decisions. The tables will turn that is certain.

I am astounded at the vitriol. This tread sounds like a bunch of petulant children demanding equality. News flash. Life isn’t fair. Fairness is achieved through argument, persuasion and long suffering. We have valid points. Make them. Don’t disqualify oneself with tit-for-tat commentary.

Don’t get hung up on Newts morals and weird as that is. Pretend I made the argument. Also, just because Bush did it doesn’t make it acceptable. I don’t have to explain that logic to you. It just seems to me that once the executive branch starts interpreting the law a democracy takes a dangerous fa-cod of a democracy.