Comments


  • A Federal Court ruled the DOMA is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause (something clear to lots of folks a long time ago) and some how it's Obama's fault?

    How does that work?

    June 30, 2011 at 5:07 p.m.

  • I don't want to be argumentative either - but if you can't stop spending money on things you don't need or have to do - how do you really get down to the business of balancing the out go to the in flow.
    I do agree - the answer is some combination of tax reform and spending cuts to get us out of this mess and back on track. The decisions are going to be hard and not popular.
    That is the problem - most of our elected officials never stop running for reelection and start doing the job they were elected to do.
    The government cannot spend us to recovery and with the uncertainty the decisions in the private sector to invest in the future changes by the minute.
    We need stability. Right now we have none.
    Another issue is that what is known by most Americans is what the talking head on the TV or radio is saying at the moment. I am not sure we as Americans can even contact our representatives and express what we want them to do based on the half truths we continue to receive from the media.
    We are in a mess.

    June 30, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.

  • I don't want to sound argumentative but pork is not an issue because it amounts to less than 1% of the budget; and neither does discretionary spending. The GOP have already signed a "no pork pledge" but they need to break away from their alliance to Grover Norquist. The have already made enough cuts in discretionary spending without jeopardizing our recovery, but we need to find some way to reform Medicare and Social Security and reduce defense spending. Those are the big drivers of our deficit and debt.

    I think it's gonna take tax revenues, spending cuts, and investments to get this country going again.... Spending cuts alone will not give us growth nor will it create the environment for jobs.... Jobs creates more revenue which drives down the debt and deficit.

    Reducing that two billion dollars a week for Afghanistan will go a long way but as I've said before we can run the government like we do our household budget, because of foreseen expenditures. If we have a catastrophe we will respond whether it's a devastating tornado in Ohio, a killer earthquake in India, or a hostile situation to protect our Allies.

    Anyway ;That's my take on it.

    June 30, 2011 at 11:42 a.m.

  • Don't disagree with you - each President excercises as much power as he can - just as a mayor, governer, county commissioner - etc - etc. I continue to be disappointed in congress that they cannot find middle ground - each continues to protect their personnal pork barrel at the expense of the American taxpayer. It seems the very few things that continue to be in the forfront when speaking of the budget are Medicare, Social Security, Defense, and maybe one or two more.
    What about cutting the budget for studying the mating habits of the Western Colorado Fruit Fly (made up) or why cow manure smells or financing the musemum for left handed red hair Arkansas artists (also made up) - but you get my point.
    I really feel a significant budget reduction can be accomplished if we will just step up or should I say Congress step up and stop spending money on things we don't have to do.

    I know I have in my budget.

    What would impress me is if President Obama or any President for that matter would stand up and say - "Get Real - cut out the pork or I will veto the budget!" And that President mean it!

    June 30, 2011 at 11:27 a.m.

  • I think ALL presidents want all the executive power that is given to them;after all it takes a gigantic ego to think you are the one that can solve our nation's power...e.g. Obama ran against the executive privileges exercised by president Bush but he did not complain when those excessive powers were awarded to him.

    BTW the president ducked the question because he does not want to challenge the 14th Amendment.

    Don't take it personal

    June 30, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.

  • King Obama - doesn't he think so anyway?

    June 30, 2011 at 11:03 a.m.

  • During the president's press conference yesterday, two constitutional issues were brought up (3 if you count the War Powers Act) that if given serious consideration could bring about a constitutional crisis right the middle of an economic crisis.

    A few senate democrats are looking at the wording of the 14th Amendment, Section 4," the validity of the public debt of the United States should not be questioned" to mean it would be unconstitutional not to raise the debt ceiling. Remember, not raising the debt ceiling is the same as saying" I'll keep driving the car; I just won't make the payments." A literalist might take that to mean that we have to pay our bills no matter what If that's the meaning what's to keep the president from ordering the treasury secretary to keep paying the bills no matter what Congress decides? Remember the founders didn't want a monarchy, so they gave the power of the purse strings to Congress. I believe the Supreme Court would side with Congress on the interpretation of Section 4 of the 14th amendment. What do you think?

    Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell said that the GOP wants to introduce a "balanced budget amendment" as a condition for raising the debt ceiling. We will never enact a balanced budget amendment unless we do some drastic steps like privatizing FEMA. House majority leader, Eric Cantor, took a lot of flak for wanting to deny FEMA funds to the tornado victims of Joplin, Missouri, unless it was met with equal spending cuts. The real stumbling block of a balanced budget amendment is that it takes 2/3 house, 2/3 senate, and ¾ of the state legislators to pass a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

    June 30, 2011 at 9:37 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 29, 2011 at 3:48 a.m.

  • It would be a lot easier if we were all cut from the same piece of cloth. :-)

    I'm glad that we have the three co equal branches of government and the checks and balances.

    Thanks for the civil discussion and your point of view was not lost on me.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:33 p.m.

  • Very acceptable for us to disagree on whether the President can decide which laws to support and not support.

    June 28, 2011 at 4:26 p.m.

  • Newcowboyintown

    Words matter; the president has not decided that DOMA should not be the law of the land;IT STILL IS; he has decided that his administration will no longer defend a position that he thinks is unconstitutional. I see nothing wrong with that, because the republican presidential candidates are saying that they will repeal the Affordable Health Care Act and Financial Reform at the joy of their constituents.

    Example, a President Romney would not likely allow his Atty. General to challenge the "individual mandate" in the courts because he thinks it's unconstitutional.

    DOMA will likely fail when it gets to the Supreme Court because the Federal government has no business determining the definition of the word " marriage."....DOMA has served for 15 years but last Saturday a big state like New York approved same-sex marriage. We're likely to see a domino effect.

    I don't think one decision to not defend a law, that in all probability ,is unconstitutional is a pattern for anything, but that's just me.

    June 28, 2011 at 3:49 p.m.

  • We are in total agreement - laws can be changed by Congress - the Supreme Court can strike them down as unconstitutional and interpret how they are to be enforced.
    I really take issue on what laws the President decides his Attorney General will and will not defend. Since the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President - in this case the President has decided that DOMA should not be the law of the land - thus the Attorney General will not defend on behalf of the American Public.
    What other laws will and can President Obama decide that his administration will not support - where can and would it stop prior to 2012 or actually 2013?

    June 28, 2011 at 3:34 p.m.

  • The president is not officially determining whether DOMA is constitutional. He is merely stating his opinion as a constitutional law professor. Atty. General Eric Holder agrees. The matter will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

    I was just trying to determine if you thought that once a law is passed that it cannot be changed. I agree, Congress can repeal laws because elections matter.

    June 28, 2011 at 3:27 p.m.

  • I feel that Congress has the right to repeal the Health Care Act just as they have the right to repeal DOMA - I think they have that right.
    I don't think the President has the right to interpret the law - I may be wrong.
    If the majority of Congress voted to repeal the Health Care Act or DOMA - I may not like it - but I think it is the right way to make the change.

    June 28, 2011 at 3:19 p.m.

  • OK,Newcowboyintown, do you feel the same way about Congress wanting to repeal a law that was enacted by the previous administration?

    The president of the United States is a human being with every right to have his opinion...I'M sorry but DOMA in still in the books; and the president did not change it nor can he.

    Now this is what happened when the Justice Dept looked at DOMA.
    "WASHINGTON (CNN) – Attorney General Eric Holder today sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, after determining that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

    The finding came after a review of the Act was conducted, prompted by recent lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.

    http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...

    Laws are challenged all the time e.g. Patriot Act,domestic warrantless wiretapping,torture etc.

    June 28, 2011 at 3:09 p.m.

  • Seems to me that Obama said specifically that the marriage act was unconstitutional - that he has no right to do. I would rather the justice department defend the laws of the USA until they are found to be unconstitutional. Otherwise each President can decide what he likes or doesn't like and then make law himself. I don't believe the Constitution gives him the right to make law.

    I could be wrong and many will say I am wrong - because they have a different opinion and agenda.

    June 28, 2011 at 2:55 p.m.