Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Justaham

Dumb question, what does this news mean?


13 posted on 02/23/2011 9:49:19 AM PST by erod (Unlike the President I am a true Chicagoan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: erod

“Dumb question, what does this news mean?”

It means we have an activist leftist administration trying to subvert the USA from within.

But we knew that already.


19 posted on 02/23/2011 9:54:44 AM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many younger conservative Christians out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: erod
Full text of the letter from the DOJ to Congress

Excerpt: "After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination."

-SNIP-

As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a “reasonable” one. “[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity,” and thus there are “a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute.” Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute “in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,” as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001). In light of the foregoing, I will instruct the Department’s lawyers to immediately inform the district courts in Windsor and Pedersen of the Executive Branch’s view that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review and that, consistent with that standard, Section 3 of DOMA may not be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law.

21 posted on 02/23/2011 9:56:30 AM PST by greyfoxx39 ("This administration has turned off America's beacon to the world for freedom and left darkness")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: erod

It means this Administration is NOT going to enforce laws it disagrees with.


27 posted on 02/23/2011 10:04:19 AM PST by Mr. K (Job #1 is to DEFUND THE LEFT~!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson