Failure to protect

[Cardiganwearer]

Sorry to disagree, but Obama has also sworn to uphold the Constitution and a court has ruled that DADT is against the Constitution, so by the same logic he is also duty bound not to appeal the ruling. As far as I am aware the he is not legally bound to appeal. He may be politically obliged to appeal, he may also feel it sets a bad precedent for a mere District Court to effectively strike own an act of Congress in its entirety, but that is for him to choose.

No need to apologise, I can argue all day about the constitution of another country and it's gratifying to a newcomer to have someone read my stuff and engage me in debate.

He is legally bound to appeal because the law has not changed, the bill has not passed both houses.
He is obliged to appeal because a district court does not have the authority of the supremes (Stop! in the name of love) who have the ultimate authority to declare something unconstitutional and force a law down. If he doesn't appeal the situation doesn't get resolved, district court ruling notwithstanding. It has to go to the Supreme Court to get the final stamp of unconstitutionality.

Usual caveats, I'm not a lawyer and I'm no stranger to that exquisite sensation of being completely wrong.