- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/black-pastors-impeach-holder#sthash.FKE0lkcV.nPG1t9Of.dpuf

So, African-American pastors are accusing Democrats Barack Obama and Eric Holder of contradicting values cherished in the African-American community.

does the 'coalition of black pastors' have an official name?

or is that the press using colorful descriptions,,lol




interesting, not sure if its got grounds for an impeachable offense

I would take an approach of encouraging communities to get involved and community members to vote on the issue by state (states rights,,,)


rather than scapegoat one person,, but it makes for interesting print,,,

should have been jailed after Waco,Ruby Ridge and the Elian Gonzales-Fiasco!
He has been doing the Hatchet-Jobs for the Higher-Ups for a long time now!
Wonder how much longer he will be allowed to carry on with his Skullduggery!

Isn't it remarkable how those that little understand something are the first to jump up and start offering conclusions.

And the more sadly to do so when it comes to the constitution and it's demeanor and the intent of the founders. It portrays an absolute lack of understanding of a republic and what it stands for.

But then with that fuzzy at best illusion of freedom, we start in on states rights as if they mean anything within any given context. And to betray the states rights, not to mention the people, as a democracy that can be ruled by mob rule, is just pure idiocy.

But to declare one's right are to be considered above anothers, that is downright fascism at it's best.

did Oswald bates have a white twin?..lol

First of all, we must internalize the 'flatulation' of the matter by transmitting the effervescence of the 'Indianisian' proximity in order to further segregate the crux of my venereal infection. Now, if I may retain my liquids here for one moment. I'd like to continue the 'redundance' of my quote, unquote 'intestinal tract', you see because to preclude on the issue of world domination would only circumvent - excuse me, circumcise the revelation that reflects the 'Afro-disiatic' symptoms which now perpetrates the Jheri Curis activation. Allow me to expose my colon once again. The ramification inflicted on the incision placed within the Fallopian cavities serves to be holistic taken from the Latin word 'jalapeno'."..Oswald Bates

Seems they do have a Name,and a Website!

http://caapus.org/

Coalition of African American Pastors

The Attorney General of the United States should be impeached over his repeated lawlessness in attempting to impose same-sex marriage throughout the nation. Rev. Bill Owens, Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP)
READ MORE �

The "official" name of the group is "Coalition of African American Pastors" or the CAAP. Rev. Bill Owens is the founder and president.

It's not a made up "colorful description" made up the press.

Holder isn't enforcing the laws of land and that is an impeachable offense. In spite your slobbering love affair with Obama and his administration they can't change or make up laws at will and can't LEGALLY refuse to enforce laws they don't like.

Opps.....double post

on the issue of same sex marriage,,what law is he not 'enforcing',, exactly?

MH, it is amazing how quickly you defend your heroes, criticize and belittle posters concerning a topic you later admit you know nothing about.

Begin quote:

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Monday injected the Obama administration into the emotional and politicized debate over the future of state same-sex marriage bans, declaring in an interview that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.

Mr. Holder was careful not to encourage his state counterparts to disavow their own laws, but said that officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.

Six state attorneys general — all Democrats — have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage, prompting criticism from Republicans who say they have a duty to stand behind their state laws, even if they do not agree with them.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.

“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.

As an example, Mr. Holder cited the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, which forced public school integration in 1954.

“If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities,” Mr. Holder said.

The nation’s first black attorney general, Mr. Holder has said he views today’s gay-rights campaigns as a continuation of the civil rights movement that won rights for black Americans in the 1950s and ’60s. He has called gay rights one of “the defining civil rights challenges of our time.”

In his role as the administration’s leading voice on civil rights issues, he has at times earned sharp criticism from Republicans who see him as infringing on state autonomy. He has sued Texas and North Carolina, for example, over laws that would require voters to show identification at the polls. Studies show poor and minority voters are least likely to have identification.

His comments signal the latest manifestation of the Obama administration’s evolving position on gay rights. Mr. Obama came into office opposed to same-sex marriage. But in 2011, he decided against defending the Defense of Marriage Act and ended the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from the military. The next year, the president said he personally supported gay marriage.

Mr. Holder is scheduled to address the National Association of Attorneys General at a conference on Tuesday, but reports of his comments drew immediate criticism from the president of the bipartisan group.

“It really isn’t his job to give us advice on defending our constitutions any more than it’s our role to give him advice on how to do his job,” said Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin, a Republican. “We are the ultimate defenders of our state constitutions.”

While the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, it has not weighed in on whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The legal battleground, for now, has shifted to the states, and the collective voice of several attorneys general refusing to defend their laws could help sway those cases.

One of those cases is in Wisconsin, where four same-sex couples sued this month to overturn the state’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Mr. Van Hollen said Mr. Holder’s analysis might make sense in rare cases related to state laws. But he said that in states that have passed constitutional amendments, attorneys general must defend them.

“If there’s one clear-cut job I have, it’s to defend my Constitution,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “There is no one else in position to defend the State Constitution if it comes under attack.”

Colorado’s attorney general, John W. Suthers, a Republican, has also warned against attorneys general making decisions about which laws to defend.

“I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs,” Mr. Suthers wrote in The Washington Post this month. “But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.”

Same-sex couples in the state are challenging Colorado’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

But in Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia, state attorneys general have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage. Attorneys general in California and Illinois similarly refused to defend bans that were later overturned.

“The answers to these questions are crystal clear,” said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “Attorneys general can’t close their eyes to something that’s blatantly unconstitutional. They’re not supposed to defend the laws at all costs.”

In Arizona this week, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow business owners to deny service to same-sex couples. Asked in the interview about the legislation, Mr. Holder said he had not reviewed that bill and had no view on whether it was constitutional.

But he said he was certain that, if signed into law, it would face swift legal challenges. And the state’s attorney general would have to decide whether to defend it."

no man that IS a stranger is my hero, unless they have sacrificed or risked their lives for no personal gain

I dont know them well enough to call them hero

my heroes are people I know, I simply asked a question about an allegation,,,

'enforcing' holds a different meaning to me than 'defending'

and I am as surprised that anyone objects to 'the highest level of scrutiny' over constitutional issues

as others are that someone would object to 'fair and honest' voting strategies,,,

The governor does have the right to sign that bill into law, however the issue would be to whom it applies, the constitutional issue.

An individual, as a free man has every right to determine to whom they will or will not serve as a basic right. However, if the business is a corporation, they do not have that right and must follow the statutes, after all they are a fiction of the state. As a fiction, they are subject to all statutes as part of the corporate contract.

But that also leaves a loose end, if that business has a license for it's operation, it could stand to lose that license.

Moral of the story, shouldn't be a fiction nor apply for permission to do something that would be illegal to do without the license. As a basic right that has been converted into a privilege, you have every right to ignore and assert your right to serve whom you please or to not serve whom you please if they impede upon your moral beliefs.

I never said he broke any laws pertaining to MARRIED same sex couples. However he is giving Federal Marital rights in the federal courts to gay couples from states that don't allow gay people to marry. If they AREN'T married what law gives him the right to give them marital rights in the courts or anywhere else? By giving unmarried couples marital rights he is not enforcing the law.

Personally I think unmarried gay couples, and straight couples, should be able to give their (unmarried) partners the same type rights that are enjoyed by married couples. But Holder and Obama don't have the constitutional right to circumvent current laws or to create their own laws to give those rights to anyone.

The point of this thread is that some African-American pastors are accusing two Democrats of contradicting values that are cherished in the African-American community.

But what does African-American have to do with it. Would that be an attempt to add racial undertones?

What I see are a set of concerned pastors that desire to stand up for their moral rights vs two totally immoral individuals that will foster their own agenda and everyone else can be damned.

So when the racists don't play the race card, why do you or did Holdemup or Odumbo play the race card?

i think it should be put to a vote... nobody should have the right to override what the people vote on, like they did in cali and i think it was N Carolina... the people voted no to gay marriage, and the government over rode the vote... if the people say yes, then thats that... but the people should decide, not the government

The African-American pastors mentioned in the OP are the ones who are claiming that Democrats Barack Obama and Eric Holder are contradicting values cherished by African-Americans. I am merely reporting what they claim.

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

States wouldn't have to pass these stupid laws if they didn't give benefits to married couples.

Eric Holder ought to be in Maximum Security Federal Prison serving a Life-Sentence for Murder at Ruby Ridge ID. and Mount Carmel,Waco TX.