But the Bush administration has taken an entirely different stance.
An otherwise superb article; this is probably an unfair indictment of the President's administration. Pres. Bush stated that this was a State's matter and so far that contention has proved true. Those cases the States have brought forward have been upheld in the State's favor by the courts.
This criticism has been laid at his door using an alleged hypocrisy as the vehicle to carry it. To wit; the Bush administration Justice Dept. has challenged those court decisions yet candidate George Bush criticized the Clinton administration for the same thing. But it isn't the same thing.
As Pres. and Commander in Chief Mr. Bush has a duty to advocate for the enforcement of Federal law. The President is not supposed to pass judgment on the law itself. His opportunity to do that is when bills cross his desk.
He is supposed to represent the people, through the law, as the Executive Officer. As long as a law is on the books it is appropriate for everyone in the Executive to presume it is the will of the people. The President's opportunity to alter that presumption is to write, promote and garner support for a bill of his own. It also exists in his opportunity to appoint justices.
It is entirely appropriate (and in fact a responsibility and duty) for agents of the Executive Branch to submit a counter argument in court to any challenge of a current law. The Bush administratin has done this and the courts, so far, have sided with the States thus fulfilling the due process of Constitutional law and thus validating candidate Bush's assertion that it is a State matter.
(As a candidate he wisely never said "it's not a President's job to strike down laws; there's nothin' I could do about it. I plan to execute the powers of office as if it were my job to." But I could hear him say something like that nonetheless.)
But what of his criticism of the Clinton administration? That criticism was not about Clinton's Executive office seeking to uphold and defend Federal law as a legal advocate. It was about efforts to sabotage, by intimidation and political string pulling, the lawful rights of States to form their own laws and have them stand or fall through due process in the courts. It was the usual quasi-legal, corrupt and backhanded approach to wielding power that characterises nearly everything Bubba and HildeBeast do. In this case it fit the Wretched Duo well since it also characterises the history of the WoSD's which has been conducted by agencies who have had little respect for the administration of the day.
I see Janet Reno's using the force of the federal government to come to Missouri to lend aid to the opposition to the state CCW initiative as a perfect exampe of this. Unforutnatley, the Bush administration has seen fit to send John Walters on the same errand with regard to state MM initiatives.