President Obama has determined that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and that the Department of Justice should no longer defend the measure, which severely limits the potential of states to honor or carry out same-gender marriages, the administration announced Wednesday.
“The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits,” a person briefed on the decision said, according to the National Journal.
Here’s the press release from the Department of Justice to Speaker Boehner.
(Source: Huffington Post)
Who needs the supreme court when we are so lucky to be ruled by dear leader Obumbo!
We know Obama is a low life like all liberals. Liberalism is wrong, twisted, immoral and full of Sheker (you hear Charlie Hall).
1. Will the Congress be allowed to send attorneys to defend the law?
2. Will the House try to impeach for wilful failure to obey the laws?
3. Which party gets blamed for fixating on sex when they should be trying to do something about the economy and the deficit?
4. If the case isn’t fully litigated, does it fail to establish a precedent so that the Congress can reinact the law at some subsequent point.
Finally, the Faker-in-Chief is beginning to reveal his true self.
Now, if we could only reveal the whereabouts of his mysterious birth certificate, I’ll bet he was born in Libya.
The administration tried to defend the law, but lost at the District Court level. There is no obligation to defend every law all the way to the Supreme Court.
And it is indeed a really hard to defend law — marriage had previously been up to the states. This was a massive federal incursion into states rights of the type conservative used to decry.
Akuperma:
Regarding your third point, I hardly think that refusing to defend a law can be considered “fixating.” That’s a fairly disingenuous stretch, whether you agree with the decision or not.
It’s the executive branch’s right to do not enforce a law, but the guy’va it takes for this kenyan to “declare” something unconstitutional is .. well… characteristic of the ego we have in the white house now.
This he decides is unconstitutional but with his moronic healthcare law, which WAS ruled unconstitutional, he defies the court and continues his march.
Just read the statement. He is only withdrawing support for Section 3, which usurps state power by defining marriage. Presumably he is still defending Section 2.
Putting aside the fact that this is liberal nonsense, it is ridiculous purely from a legal perspective. Interestingly, former President Clinton, who is no right winger and is a far greater legal scholar than President Obama (Clinton was a law professor before entering politics), was the one who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.
To clarify, President Obama did serve as a Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004. However, that is not the same a being a tenured professor.
#6- the “fixating” refers to the whole party, both of them. The Republicans will try to present gay marriage as what the the Democrats were doing instead of fixing the economy. When (some) Republicans respond (probably by hiring their own lawyers, or trying to re-enact the statute, or with a constitutional amendment), the Democrats will say the Republicans are focusing on gay marriage instead of fixing the economy.
I believe Obama couldn’t care less (he’s straight, while he’s somewhat liberal on the issue, most other African Americans are very conservative on gay rights). He wants to make sure there isn’t any backlash against him personally – and probably will take the position that there are better things for him to worry about.
#7:
Are you aware that GW Bush used presidential signing statements to declare certain parts of legislation that he signed unconstitutional, or proclaiming the intent not to enforce them?
The executive branch has been “deciding” the constitutionality of statutes LONG before Obama.
Do some reading before spouting partisan nonsense.
Wow! It’s almost like Obama thinks he’s in charge of some magical ‘third branch’ of the government that has the constitutional right to not enforce laws it can project as being unconstitutional. Why can’t we do things like the good ol’ days where one party was responsible for brutally enforcing the law, no matter how immoral or inane it was?
The President has violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Unless the courts have declared a law unconstitutional, the law stands, and it is his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution”. Nor does the constitution empower the president with the prereogative to determine what is and is not constitutional. This extralegal reach for power is probably even an impeachable offense. What do you think, akaperma?
#8,
One judge ruled the law unconstitutional. Another ruled one section of the law unconstitutional. Three others (including one just yesterday) have ruled it entirely constitutional. That is 3-2 or 4-1 in favor of the law, but you are once again being disingenuous and citing only the 1.
“President Obama did serve as a Lecturer at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004. However, that is not the same a being a tenured professor.”
He was offered a tenured position but turned it down.
#12,
Based on Boehner’s comments today in response, it seems like he may just let this one die.
#14, 15:
See #13