I am no apologist; I was the one who argued that most of his early speeches had little to no content. I think, though, that he is being blamed for something that has chiefly to do with America's ridiculously paralytic legislative system. Nor is the current proposal bad; it addresses quite a few problems, although it leaves some (notably cost) unsolved.

On the economy I was referring to the battle to control political dialogue; it is very hard to do that when the main subject of discourse is always the rate of joblessness. You are also attributing most of the changes to Obama rather than a legislative process that is notorious for giving immense trouble to any proposed set of changes. I ask you: what was Obama supposed to do to those last couple of senators? People should remember that he has no official legislative power, which contrasts sharply with most other systems. Remember, Bush too had immense trouble with his major domestic initiative.

I have no doubt that Obama has great intentions and that his administration will do at least a few great things in the first four years in office. But based on what they were sold, people have every right to be disillusioned with his performance, transparency, and policy stands thus far.

@ Lock, something always prompts you to say something like this: "as you'd know if you've been paying attention to this issue..." The main details right now are ones that I've cited; your details have been faulty (the legal ones) or based on an assumption that a full timetable equals deliberate delay. You don't have to pull the usual gambit of pretending I don't know what I'm talking about; you like to throw it around, but I'm no dummy and I'm better informed than you give me credit for. My points here are valid.

we'll have to agree to disagree

After that, you'll see a serious push; Obama is too smart a man not to have formulated this strategy.

I won't agree to that.

Maybe recently, but I don't think he could have predicted the outlandish conservative backlash to the bill, or Ted Kennedy's death, or the Democrats losing TK's senate seat. I think it's more a part of rolling with the punches and accepting the new reality of the situation than it is all part of a grand plan.

I don't recall complaining about petty attacks: I was complaining about their verbosity.

It's this tendency to purposely misread what people are saying so that you'll have something to say about it that gets people annoyed with you.

As far as Lock goes:

"Legally speaking, the DOJ didn't compare gay marriage to incest, and that word doesn't appear in the brief. What it did was make a lawyerly argument that 'the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect,' including not recognizing a marriage of an uncle to a niece that took place in Italy, 'because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.' " *

Are you really incapable of making simple distinctions? This isn't the first time; you did this throughout the Catholicism thread with claims of 'it doesn't say it's a Catholic school', the church 'generally supports dictatorships' and absurd claims about how 'the belief is that suicide victims generally go to hell.' It turns out your 'waffling' claims are based upon the tenuous evidence of Congress and Obama not having done things yet. Of course, I'm the one who ignores such 'common knowledge' as the idea that people on the Christian Right are generally anti-Semites (they are not, ideologues though they are). Note that in no case are these claims absolute untruths but they ranged from half-truths to nearly total spin and distortion.

When you consistently show a pattern of ignoring the facts it is perfectly fair to question your evidence, and it turns out to have missed the mark once again. The brief did not actually compare gay marriage to incest, nor was it written by Obama but by a staffer in the Justice Department.

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

You still haven't noted your legal mistake about how it is somehow non-problematic for Obama to order the military to ignore a written law.

“President Obama has the constitutional authority to alter the implementation of the statute. Article II, § 2 identifies the President as the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’ and the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that the President has the prerogative to establish rules and regulations for the armed forces.” (Page 22)
“The Executive may also exercise whatever authority Congress provides within a specific statute. While Congress also has the constitutional authority to establish rules regulating the military, it can delegate that authority to the Executive.” (Page 22)
“Congress has delegated to the Secretary of Defense the authority to develop the regulations necessary to implement Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” — but hasn’t delegated the power to suspend the Act; thus if the Presidential power to suspend it, pending future Congressional repeal, exists, that authority must come straight from the Constitution. (Page 23)
Under Youngstown that Constitutional authority doesn’t extend to straight repeal. But it does allow for substantial amendment of the existing regulations. (Page 23ff)

"You are uninformed. You have very specific ideas about things and you somehow ignore all information that contradicts your ideas. I'm not arguing with you anymore."

The irony of that last quote is annihilating.

"The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy...though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"...marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute ... marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

The brief then goes on to say that because States have reserved the right to not recognize legal marriages based on objection to such a marriage citing cases that involve incest and statutory rape, it is Constitutional to not recognize gay marriage even if it is legal in another state.

...thus if the Presidential power to suspend it, pending future Congressional repeal, exists, that authority must come straight from the Constitution. (Page 23) Under Youngstown that Constitutional authority doesn’t extend to straight repeal. But it does allow for substantial amendment of the existing regulations.

@ Rogue: First of all Obama did not say anything himself (as Lock claimed, which is wrong no matter what you're arguing).

You're close, but your description needs a few edits:Citing a case does not state that the cases must be equivalent, especially when the other cases provide good examples for why those particular statutes are constitutional. Lawyers do it when citing reasons to judge something constitutional. Could it have also been a comparison? Yes. But it doesn't have to be. It shows the Obama White House ordered a legal viewpoint on the constitutionality be made public. Why? I am not sure myself, but one cannot state that a brief where the general thrust is to illustrate constitutionality equals a broad comparison of specific cases. They needed to use a few of x number of cases where restrictions on marriage cropped up; restrictions were and still are based around a) Age and b) Blood relationships and (obsolete now) c) race. That is where the restrictions lie, and where they have always been. You're blaming them for drawing cases from a pool where the cases generally fit that description.

On DADT:

Note that the President is given authority over the regulations for the armed forces but the laws of Congress also apply to the armed forces. These two, naturally, can conflict, and the paper addresses it. The President's authority is to make "substantial amendment of the existing regulations." "Substantial amendment" does not equal the right to actually ignore written legislation. This last one is a basic thing; the idea that a President's authority to amend these rules does not give the president the power to disregard the instructions of such legislation. This is why you will not see legal analysts treating it this way; the legal argument for Obama to order the military to ignore legislation is an absurd argument that holds that the Constitutional authority of the president allows so much leeway in implementing a law and so much authority in amending regulations that he is allowed to ignore legislative specifics outright. And they are specifics. This reasoning is reminiscent of the Bush administration's legal views that the President is not constrained in some areas by legislative specifics, but the sentiment springs from the left this time.

Also, I said that the Catholic church does not believe that suicide victims must go to hell, and it doesn't. The Vatican directly backs me up. A link to the relevant church doctrine section was cited, whereupon others argued that the theology only describes a small number of cases. Oddly enough, the section that describes potential for lenience for cases of mental illness/depression/other things makes no mention of 'only applying to a small number of cases'.

The Church gives you an out for pretty much anything. If you're out of your mind, or mentally retarded, or coerced into doing something, you're not held responsible. But generally, if you kill yourself are you going to go to hell? Catholics say yes. But whatever, I'll just go read the other thread at some point. I'm sure somebody else will have said what I would have argued anyway.

I feel like this thread has untapped drama reserves.

All right, Jimmy, you apparently know more about this than every constitutional lawyer and politician who has been on CNN talking about this in the last year, and more than the 78 members of Congress who signed a letter asking Obama to use his authority to halt the enforcement of this practice.

It's incredibly telling that instead of referring to the unconstitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws as the precedent for the case, the Justice Department instead referred to incest and statutory rape.