Posted on 02/23/2011 1:00:00 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
In a bold, principled, and unexpected move, the administration — led by Obama himself — has determined that the gay-marriage banning Defense of Marriage Act "violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment" and will no longer defend it in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at rollingstone.com ...
I have been very leery of jumping the impeachment shark, but to publicly declare a US Statute legally passed by Congress and signed into law by a President to be unconstitutional,and to further declare your refusal to enforce this law seems to me to fit the definition of high crime. If an individual POTUS can choose which laws are constitutional and which will be carried into execution then so can the states.
Official Statement
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html
Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:
In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.
Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.
Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.
Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President’s and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.
The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.
Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.
You’re not the only one....when I heard of Hussein’s unilateral action in declararing the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, the first thing I thought was, “Who the hell does he think he is?”
My second thought, “impeachment.”
Just another nail in the prophetic collapse of the USA. God will judge this nation so severely. I hope I’m not here for it.
WE ARE and they will trump him eventually. 2012 can't come quick enough and when he is out he should be tried for tyranny and then escorted with Mooshell to Kenya. That arrogant POS.
Where are the Articles of Impeachment? (and I’m damn serious)
Well, gotta hand it to him... he is doing exactly that. In true execution style, he is killing the office of the president. He wants robes with his crown.
You're probably right, he's going to bring out something new to every one of his perverted special interest groups to gin up support for himself.
He's calling all the troops to war by promising every one of them something they want.
... “violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment” and will no longer defend it in court.
uh, Rolling Stones, the Fifth Amendment?
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
When the leader of the Executive branch unilaterally decides what laws are Constitutional while ignoring Judicial rulings on un-Constitutional laws, it is time to impeach.
But of course, that isn’t going to happen, so we are now officially a banana republic ruled by lawless thugs.
Agreed, but on the other hand to a commie, lying to non-commie is considered a good work.
We got the memo in 1936, when FDR threatened to stack the court unless he got his way.
Which he did.
It was inevitable that it would turn out this way, but the Free Republic had a pretty good run.
The next phase should be a civil war followed by a more or less autonomous good ruler that is selected by the military. i.e., a Caesar Augustus.
Im gonna have to go out to the truck and listen to GB today...
Any bets that Beck is gonna spontaneously combust?
How many states have already banned gay marriage through referendums and ballot initiatives? Here in Michigan we passed a gay marriage ban by around 60% several years ago.
The Liberal Messiah wants there to be an uprising, so then He can try to clamp down on all who oppose him. He’s trying to provoke us; be careful, don’t do anything stupid.
"Principled"? Maybe I don't know what the word means?
“Seems to me, we are no longer a nation of laws...”
I wouldn’t call us a nation at all actually. This is a disputed territory.
What is ODumbo going to do when a state refuses to recognize a gay marriage from another state based upon the DOMA? While it’s one thing to exercise prosecutorial discretion not to enforce a law (which is understandable given the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books), it is quite another thing to actively oppose the efforts of a state to enforce a law that was passed by both houses of Congress, signed into law by the POTUS, and never declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Maobama ping...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.