Obama Justice sued for picking which laws to enforce

[Sandra]

Obama Justice sued for picking which laws to enforce

'This isn't just a threat to marriage. It's a threat to the entire democratic process'


Posted: August 31, 2011
7:53 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh



Barack Obama's Department of Justice has been sued in federal court – again – for picking and choosing which of the nation's laws it wants to enforce.

The newest case is being brought by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Family Research Council. It focuses on the announcement last winter from Attorney General Eric Holder that his department – assigned the responsibility of defending the U.S. and its laws – simply won't do that when it comes to the congressionally approved and presidentially signed Defense of Marriage Act.

"When Barack Obama became president, he took an oath to uphold our laws – and not just the ones with which he personally agrees," said FRC President Tony Perkins.

Take part in an innovative, high-tech, grass-roots lobbying campaign to urge Congress to protect marriage.

"If he'll undermine this law, which one is next? This isn't just a threat to marriage. It's a threat to the entire democratic process," he said.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told WND that that already has begun happening, as evidenced by the Obama administration's recent decision to stop the deportation of large numbers of illegal aliens, in apparent violation of the nation's own immigration laws.

The lawsuit is a Freedom of Information Act action, filed this week, and seeking records related to the decision by Holder, and possibly Obama, not to fulfill the requirements of the department to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

"If the Obama administration has nothing to hide, then why stonewall?" said Perkins. "We have serious concerns that the Justice Department wants to hide evidence that it was doing the bidding of campaign donors and homosexual activists from whom Obama will need assistance for his re- election."

Obama was heavily dependent on voter factions such as the homosexual lobby during his 2008 campaign and is expected to be equally or more dependent on such special interests in 2012.

He catered to those interests during the 2008 campaign by promising to take such actions as the arbitrary declaration that open homosexuality is acceptable in the U.S. military and already has fulfilled much of that promise.

The Defense of Marriage Act was adopted to ensure that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized by the federal government. It has been a stumbling block ever since for those who are demanding same-sex duos be given full status as "married" across the nation.

The case is separate from and in addition to an earlier action brought by Judicial Watch itself.

In that case, filed in May, Judicial Watch explained it was seeking details of any influences on the executive decision not to defend DOMA.

At the time, Fitton said, "The institution of marriage is under vicious attack not only by President Obama and the Holder Justice Department, but also by liberal politicians and activist courts at the state level."

Fitton told WND today that some 130,000 pages of information have been identified by the Justice Department as pertinent as a result of the first lawsuit, and some of that information should be available to Judicial Watch as early as the next few weeks.

He explained the additional lawsuit, which has been assigned to a different judge, raises the profile of the Obama administration actions and increases the pressure on the executive branch to explain its apparent decision to ignore the nation's law.

He said the new case takes another strike at "the continuing scandal" of the Obama administration.

"It [the decision not to enforce DOMA] would upend the rule of law in the Justice Department," he said. "If it's [the rule of law] not there, then where is it?"

The new case on behalf of FRC seeks to determine the "purported basis" for the decision and the "possible influence of homosexual activists."

It was on Feb. 23, 2011, when Holder stated the Obama administration simply would not defend the nation's DOMA law. It took only hours for homosexual activists trying to strike California's constitutional declaration that marriage is between one man and one woman to quote Holder in a motion in the court case over that vote of the people.

"The evidence suggests the nation's highest law enforcement is refusing the enforce the law to appease another special interest group," Fitton said.

When Holder made his announcement, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to contract with a private attorney to defend the marriage definition as needed.

Washington's abandonment of the law also helped prompt a new campaign to defend marriage in America. "Time to Defend Marriage: The Genesis 2:24 Campaign" allows constituents to send letters to members of both the Senate and House.

The campaign to protect marriage enables constituents to send letters to each of the 435 members of the U.S. House and each of the 100 U.S. senators for only $29.99, only a fraction of what postage by itself would cost should someone take on the project alone.

The campaign is being championed by Kenneth L. Hutcherson, senior pastor and co-founder of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Wash., who recently wrote in a column on WND saying the defense of marriage "is a movement I would be willing to lead."

Battles over the definition of marriage have been hottest in courts in California in recent months, since voters there approved a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, and a homosexual judge who appears to stand to benefit from his own ruling declared it unconstitutional.

But it doesn't stop there.

In Canada, arguments already are being made in courts that since government prohibitions on same-sex "marriage" have been removed, so should bans on polygamy. A California Supreme Court justice warned of such developments when his court, over his objections, created same-sex "marriage" in the state.

Hutcherson told WND that Christians shouldn't be surprised when homosexuals seek their own way with American society, because it's their nature.

The campaign, which also is supported by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, now of MyFamilyTalk.com, as well as Gary Bauer and dozens of other high-profile Christian leaders, says, "Marriage is under attack by zealots who want to redefine the cornerstone institution as one not between a man and a woman – but one between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Nothing will result in the destruction of Western Civilization faster than such a development."


Read more: Obama Justice sued for picking which laws to enforce http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=339777#ixzz1WkNKTgeR

*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]


To those who have taken the Oath, Remember the Oath!
To those who have not and believe in the Constitution,
Take a similar Oath now to the Constitution!
Remember that those who make laws contrary to the Constitution,
Those who enforce laws contrary to the Constitution,
And those who give orders contrary to the Constitution,
Have become domestic enemies of the Constitution!
It doesn't take a Judge or a lawyer to know the difference!


"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 164, 176. (1803)

 

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

 

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442.

Teddy's Answer to Diversity!

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.
— Theodore Roosevelt, speech before the Knights of Columbus, 1915, New York

Teddy's Answer to Bush and Obama!

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
— Theodore Roosevelt

Teddy's Answer to Obama & Congress

" We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure.  Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public.  Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity."  — Theodore Roosevelt