Posted on 02/25/2011 1:36:45 PM PST by Red Badger
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment Specter Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Newt should be ashamed. He picked this right off the Rush show, yesterday. Even using Palin as an example. I agree, but he should give credit to Rush.
The President, this president or any president, isn't constitutionally or legally obligated to defend any law from a constitutional challenge.
In fact, there are several examples in the last few decades where Republican and Democrat presidents refused to defend facial (just like this one) and as-applied challenges. INS v. Chadha, Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and Bob Jones University v. United States were all cases that Republican presidents refused to defend from as-applied constitutional challenges.
In 2005, John Roberts was asked specifically in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing about just such an instance (Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission) when he worked in GHW Bush's Office of Solicitor General. Roberts
As Jim Noble said, there is a logical and practical distinction between not enforcing a law and not defending a law from a civil legal challenge. Thus far, Obama has only done the later, not the former.
Time constraints should prevent that. We could only get Biden if 0 wins reelection in 2012. If which case, we deserve what we get.
I heard Neal Boortz say this should be enough for impeachment but it would take longer to impeach him than to vote him out.
How about if George Bush would have said, "I don't like the law on abortion. We're not going to protect abortion anymore." Do you think that would be a constitutional crisis? How about if the next Republican President said, "I don't believe in this equal rights mumbo jumbo, we're not going to enforce those laws anymore." Would that be a constitutional crisis?
Discussion needs to go main stream. Obama keeps pushing because no one holds him accountable.
I’m glad Obozo and Holder did this. Every time they flip off SCOTUS they just dig their hole with them a little deeper.
Like in the state of the union speech last year when Obozo singled them out. I think it makes it MORE likely they will
smack his face when they finally hear the healthcare law.
I believe he said that he wouldn’t defend it from a challenge.
There is nothing unconstitutional about DOMA. It is the law of the land.
Obama’s oath of office does not give him the power to decide which law he will defend in court, nor does the Constitution give him the power to decide which law or laws ARE Consitutional.
He has refused to defend DOMA.
He has refused to abide by a Federal judge’s injunction against Obamacare—a law that was passed with bribes paid for by your tax dollars.
He has refused to abide by the Federal judge that said he does not have the right to preclude drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
He has refused to defend the borders,especially the Southern border with Mexico, in the face of massive illegal immigration and the presence of drug cartels for which violence as now come across the border and killed Federal agents and American citizens.
He has defied existing law in his takeover of GM and Chrysler, denying clear rights of standing in bankruptcy for preferred bondholders in order to give power to unions that support him.Dealerships headed by Republicans were closed, and dealerships headed by Democrats were allowed to stay open.
He has put in place over 30 “czars” that are not subject to Senate confirmation and approval, to run his government, and refuses to meet with his own Cabinet.
He is not eligible to be President, because with a British father, he is not a natural born citizens under ANY circumstance.
Impeachment is imperative. The mask is off. He is daring us or anyone to do anything about his abuse of power and the awarding of America to his cronies.
He has failed to uphold his oath of office and he is not eligible to be President.
A line has been drawn in the sand.
The question is, are we going to allow the line to stand?
No, it's not.
"Dumb lawyers are a dime a dozen"
Then I assume you'd put Ronald Reagan's AG William French Smith, and his Solicitor General, Rex Lee (father to UT Sen. Mike Lee) in that same "dumb lawyer" category? After all, they are the lawyers, acting on Reagan's direction, to NOT defend a civil suit directed at the IRS from Bob Jones University.
John Roberts, while also working in the Solicitor General office under GHW Bush, didn't defend the FCC from a lawsuit, because they agreed with the plaintiff. Is Roberts equally "dumb".
This happens in EVERY administration. People have very short memories, that seem to be more politically expedient than intellectually honest.
Oh for pete’s sake. Who cares whether Gingrich is running for president, not running, got this from Rush, whatever.
At least he said it, and all I’ve heard from everybody else...including Palin...is....uh....nuttin’...
Who is "he", and what is "it"?
NewsMax - the Debka of the American right.
>>>How about if George Bush would have said..
President Bush frequently used signing statements to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, and that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. He used signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined. No constitutional crisis ensued.
Please let me get this straight because I just told Jim Noble he didn't know what he was talking about. Maybe I don't.
Specifically, 0bama must ENFORCE laws, but he doesn't have to DEFEND them from a constitutional challenge. Is that what you're saying?
So why is he not in bigger trouble for not ENFORCING our immigration laws?
Something still makes no sense here. IANAL, but *most* laws make some sort of sense at the bottom of them. This situation doesn't at this point, at least to me.
“(Speaker Gingrich stressed that we are not currently in a constitutional crisis, nor was he calling for the direct impeachment of the president. His statements were meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media.)” -quote from the Newsmax article.
By definition, it doesn’t become a constitutional crisis until their is an internal challenge of sovereignty in the government. Words have meanings, and bandying them about for dramatic effect cheapens and diminishes their impact. Case in point, the word “racist” has been misused to the point where it’s meaningless. It’s not to suggest that the event isn’t monumental, but it’s being mislabeled. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK were earth shaking events, but neither was a constitutional crisis by definition.
“Not defending this law is court is the same as not enforcing the law. Dumb lawyers are a dime a dozen.”
I understand the distinction, but am confused by Obama’s behavior. If the law is unconstitutional, then wouldn’t he be violating his oath of office to enforce it? And is he indeed doing that right now? (the latter is an honest question: I haven’t been tracking this issue that closely). If the law truly is unconstitutional, then he should be impeached for enforcing it! How’s that for a Catch-22?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And, as I pointed out in several other posts, Obama wouldn't at all be alone in the exercise of this "discretion". Over a dozen presidents going back to before the last century have done just that - refused to defend existing law at their discretion.
Now, I wouldn't agree that Obama can ignore or refuse to enforce duly enacted laws. BUT, there are some constitutional and legal scholars that, given certain circumstances, think just that. John Yoo, and his bizarre "unitary executive theory" posits that in a time of war, Presidents acting as commander-in-chief, can ignore virtually any law. That, I think is insane. But, Yoo has people, on the left and on the right, who agree with him.
Absolutely right. As wishy washy as newt can be, it is a relief that the former Speaker got this out. Hopefully others will pile on.
Well, thank you ODH.
And to you, Jim Noble, I retract my ignorant statement. I stand by my logic but it just doesn’t stand up to the real world I guess.
Peace.
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.