Responsibilities and the Constitution

So, my fourth-grade son is learning about the branches of government.  In the notes he brought home last week, the key information recorded was that

• the Congress creates the laws
• the Supreme Court verifies the laws
• the President enforces the laws.

The oath of office a president swears is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".  Accordingly, the president is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws.

Recently, we have observed several situations where the president has chosen to disregard certain laws, indicating that the office of the president will not enforce them.  Clearly, this is a choice to disregard an oath.  Given that this is politics, it may be redundant to point out that it is unethical.

However, I'm curious how we understand the constitutional nature of this behavior.  If the enforcer of the laws does not enforce the laws and disregards the constitution, who is to hold the enforcer responsible for not enforcing?

A few of the specific examples are

• Defense of Marriage (DOMA) early in his presidency.
• Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obama Care) in indicating that certain requirements would not be enforced in the timing indicated in the law
• Affirmative Action, specifically in college admissions.

The last is the most startling to me.  President Obama has directed colleges to ignore the Supreme Court ruling, directing colleges to continue enforcing affirmative actions despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary. 

We pride ourselves on abiding by the rule of law.  Certainly this is tenuous when the primary rulers and purveyors of Law disregard the guidelines of the Constitution.

The ever-changing story

One of the things that baffles me about the theory of evolution is the seemingly simple solution it has employed time-and-again to solve conundrums and complex problems.  When something no longer measures up, add a million years.

To this end, I found the article by Answers In Genesis quite interesting. The author presents a synopsis of the history of the Big Bang Theory, documenting some of the changes that occurred when problems arose.

A few years ago I watched a debate and one interesting point struck me.  One participant argued that Creationsist are unsettled when there appear to be 'holes' in their theory while scientists welcome 'holes' in their theory as part of the process of science.  I'm not sure I agree with this statement as it applies to historical science, but it may apply to operational science.  Certainly Creationists look to the Bible as permanent truth and expect that the data will continue to reveal the truth of scripture more and more as the evidence is available.  They are not welcome to revisions of the creation history.

When did we begin wanting to know of the sexual behaviors of athletes?

I don't know when we began reporting on the sexual habits of athletes, but it isn't a good sign that we tolerate such information.  When I watch someone in golf, soccer, football, basketball, hockey, etc., I am pleased simply to enjoy the exhibition of their talents in that arena.  I do not want to know how they fold their underware nor do I want to know about their sex life.

In the brohaha following Jason Collins' revelation that he in how living a homosexual lifestyle, this letter by Mike Adams to reveal how he would respond if he were president calls us back to responsibility and sensibility.