BREAKING: Obama DOJ Announces It Will Not Defend DOMA

[TVDOC]

Moments ago, in a sharp reversal of policy, the Obama administration announced that it believes that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — is unconstitutional and will ask the Justice Department to stop defending the law. In a press release announcing the change, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also argues that laws regarding sexual orientation should be subject to a higher level of review:

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. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/23/doma-defend/#

DOJ Link:  http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html

doc

[JohnnyReb]

Soooooo, that's good for how many queer votes?

Still say they're going to cum up short in 2012.

[BlueStateSaint]

Soooooo, that's good for how many queer votes?

Still say they're going to cum up short in 2012.

No pun intended, right?

[TVDOC]

Perhaps a differrent way of looking at it is that DOMA is an act of congress signed into law by a Democrat president.   Litigation is pending, and the SCOTUS has not ruled on its constitutionality in the pending issues.

The Executive Branch has now simply stated that they choose to ignore an act of congress that they have found politically expedient to ignore..declaring it "unconstitutional".........seems to be a clear violation of separation of powers to me........

Not that I'm surprised, with Obama ignoring various Federal Court orders, and decisions, but this is just another indication of the administration's usurpation of powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

doc

[Ballygrl]

Translation=we're losing the union argument so we need to keep gay voters on board.

[BEG]

King Obama, the man who gets to pick and choose laws.

[thundley4]

Perhaps a differrent way of looking at it is that DOMA is an act of congress signed into law by a Democrat president.   Litigation is pending, and the SCOTUS has not ruled on its constitutionality in the pending issues.

The Executive Branch has now simply stated that they choose to ignore an act of congress that they have found politically expedient to ignore..declaring it "unconstitutional".........seems to be a clear violation of separation of powers to me........

Not that I'm surprised, with Obama ignoring various Federal Court orders, and decisions, but this is just another indication of the administration's usurpation of powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

doc

They have definitely usurped the authority of the courts.  Judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

[FreeBorn]

I recall a statement from '08 but I can't remember who said it, Rahm Emanuel? Right around the election I think.
"The Constitution is the single biggest hurdle to our agenda"...
Was that Emanuel, anybody?

[thundley4]

I recall a statement from '08 but I can't remember who said it, Rahm Emanuel? Right around the election I think.
"The Constitution is the single biggest hurdle to our agenda"...
Was that Emanuel, anybody?

I know Obama said something about the Constitution being outdated or something.

[FreeBorn]

"The Constitution is the single biggest hurdle to our agenda"...

That is the exact quote, just can't remember who said it. 

[DLR Pyro]

They have definitely usurped the authority of the courts. 

They most certainly have and they have the audacity to complain that Arizona is usurping Federal powers with SB1070.

[FreeBorn]

They most certainly have and they have the audacity to complain that Arizona is usurping Federal powers with SB1070.

^5!

[AllosaursRus]

Perhaps a differrent way of looking at it is that DOMA is an act of congress signed into law by a Democrat president.   Litigation is pending, and the SCOTUS has not ruled on its constitutionality in the pending issues.

The Executive Branch has now simply stated that they choose to ignore an act of congress that they have found politically expedient to ignore..declaring it "unconstitutional".........seems to be a clear violation of separation of powers to me........

Not that I'm surprised, with Obama ignoring various Federal Court orders, and decisions, but this is just another indication of the administration's usurpation of powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

doc

If a Repub pres had pulled this shit. there would be holy hell to pay!

This prick and his knob suckin' cabinet swore an oath to uphold our Constitution! WTF?

Now our President can ignore a congressional act? Again, WTF??

I swear we're in Alice in Wonderland's alternate reality!

When are the Repubs goin' to start pokin' this guy in the pooper over his complete disregard for our rule of law?

[thundley4]

Does this mean that a president could order the IRS not to enforce tax laws?

[TVDOC]

Does this mean that a president could order the IRS not to enforce tax laws?

Well....he's already not enforcing the immigration laws, and has been held in contempt by a Federal judge in Louisiana for withholding offshore drilling permits, so why not?? 

Oh wait.....how else would he get most of the money that he throws away on frivolous entitlement spending.......so that's not likely, unless the enforcement is directly related to a member of his cabinet or staff......


doc

[MrsSmith]

Color me shocked...NOT.  I've no doubt this was the plan all along, despite Obama's many, many protestations in favor of real marriage.   

[MrsSmith]

Does this mean that a president could order the IRS not to enforce tax laws?

Why not?  He hires tax cheats and puts them in control of the government, why not just order the IRS to leave them alone? 

[true_blood]

Let's see,......DOJ says DOMA unconstitutional, but allowing illegals into the Country to to murder and live off the backs of it's citizen's is ok?!?!
Seems to me we've been taken over by a foreign gubberment. Any talk of the cost of gas at all? Any talk of the economy and jobs? Nope. Ghey marriage is more important to the communist community organizer.

[AllosaursRus]

When are our reps goin' to do somethin' about it? I've sent an email to my rep and senator every stinklin' day since he ignored the healthcare judgment, and all I get back are ****in' form letters! WTF is goin' on????????

Are we seriously goin' to have to do it ourselves?

[DefiantSix]

...The Executive Branch has now simply stated that they choose to ignore an act of congress that they have found politically expedient to ignore..declaring it "unconstitutional".........seems to be a clear violation of separation of powers to me........

I can't believe I'm about to do this.

I have to take issue with you on the above highlighted point, and in so doing, I have to... defend... the actions of the pResident in this one case.  (I feel like I'm about to choke on my own tongue.)

First:  There is no authority enumerated in Art.I, Sect.8 given to Congress to regulate marriage.   That was specifically reserved to the states, and the local jurisdictions to do with as they saw fit.  As such, his argument that the DOMA is unconstitutional has a strong grounding in constitutional reality.

Second: The framers never intended for the Judicial Branch to be the sole arbiter of what was and what was not constitutional.  If the Executive Branch was enforcing policy outside of the powers granted it within the Constitution, either the Judicial Branch could blow the referee's whistle, or the Legislative Branch could cut the funding to the Executive Branch's activities until the Executive Branch fell back into line.  Likewise for if the Legislative Branch was screwing the people: either the Judicial Branch's referee's whistle or the Executive Branch refusing to enforce an unconstitutional act were considered valid recourse to constitutional misconduct on the part of the Congress.  The point being that the true magnitude of "checks and balances" in our federal system was that each of the three branches was intended to watchdog the other two.

Personally, I think the DOMA was a great set of intentions, but I cannot give it's constitutionality a pass just because I also happen to believe that a marriage should be strictly between one man and one woman.  Also personally, I happen to agree with y'all here that Caliph Barry is doing this solely to keep the queer vote from straying too far from the plantation come 2012; but whether he's doing this for the most hideous and disgusting of self serving reasons or not, he IS doing the right thing, and he's doing the right thing the RIGHT WAY, as far as the constitution is concerned.

I don't like it, but there it is.

[AllosaursRus]

I can't believe I'm about to do this.

I have to take issue with you on the above highlighted point, and in so doing, I have to... defend... the actions of the pResident in this one case.  (I feel like I'm about to choke on my own tongue.)

First:  There is no authority enumerated in Art.I, Sect.8 given to Congress to regulate marriage.   That was specifically reserved to the states, and the local jurisdictions to do with as they saw fit.  As such, his argument that the DOMA is unconstitutional has a strong grounding in constitutional reality.

Second: The framers never intended for the Judicial Branch to be the sole arbiter of what was and what was not constitutional.  If the Executive Branch was enforcing policy outside of the powers granted it within the Constitution, either the Judicial Branch could blow the referee's whistle, or the Legislative Branch could cut the funding to the Executive Branch's activities until the Executive Branch fell back into line.  Likewise for if the Legislative Branch was screwing the people: either the Judicial Branch's referee's whistle or the Executive Branch refusing to enforce an unconstitutional act were considered valid recourse to constitutional misconduct on the part of the Congress.  The point being that the true magnitude of "checks and balances" in our federal system was that each of the three branches was intended to watchdog the other two.

Personally, I think the DOMA was a great set of intentions, but I cannot give it's constitutionality a pass just because I also happen to believe that a marriage should be strictly between one man and one woman.  Also personally, I happen to agree with y'all here that Caliph Barry is doing this solely to keep the queer vote from straying too far from the plantation come 2012; but whether he's doing this for the most hideous and disgusting of self serving reasons or not, he IS doing the right thing, and he's doing the right thing the RIGHT WAY, as far as the constitution is concerned.

I don't like it, but there it is.

Sorry, but this just don't cut it!

Isn't our judiciary ruling law according to the Constitution? When a ruling has been handed down, it can go all the way to the Supreme court, correct? What happens when the Supreme court rules? It either rules it is Constitutional or it is not!

Since when, and where does it specify, that the Executive Branch can ignore Constitutional law? They cannot! They have to take it before a court in order to back up their position! They cannot just declare a law unConstitutional by their own opinion! It's the reason we have a Supreme Court in order to hear the arguments!

If they disagree with the opinion of a lower court, they must follow the procedure in order to make that claim, and have it heard by the people, ie, a higher court than the one who gave the first or last judgment!

If the Executive Branch can pick and choose which law it will enforce, we have no Republic!

That sir, is a dictatorship!

Eta:

What I am trying to put across is there are procedures if the Executive Branch disagrees. They cannot and will not, according to our Constitution, merely agree or disagree with a decision. There are checks and balances in place to prevent them from doing this very thing!

In other words, if they decide to not enforce a law because they disagree with its Constitutionality, they gots to go to court and prove it before before they quit enforcing it!

Just because this prick believes he might prevail is no excuse for not enforcing the law as it stands!

[Doc]

Sorry, but this just don't cut it!

Isn't our judiciary ruling law according to the Constitution? When a ruling has been handed down, it can go all the way to the Supreme court, correct? What happens when the Supreme court rules? It either rules it is Constitutional or it is not!

Since when, and where does it specify, that the Executive Branch can ignore Constitutional law? They cannot! They have to take it before a court in order to back up their position! They cannot just declare a law unConstitutional by their own opinion! It's the reason we have a Supreme Court in order to hear the arguments!

If they disagree with the opinion of a lower court, they must follow the procedure in order to make that claim, and have it heard by the people, ie, a higher court than the one who gave the first or last judgment!

If the Executive Branch can pick and choose which law it will enforce, we have no Republic!

That sir, is a dictatorship!

I give you the example of Andrew Jackson, who, when he was informed of a Supreme Court decision that went against "him", was quoted as saying, "John Marshall [the then Chief Justice] has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Why have the president swear under oath to, "preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION" if you don't concurrently give him the authority to do so?  The Judicial Branch as the SOLE arbiter of constitutionality or unconstitutionality is a relatively modern - as in Wilsonian era, IIRC - bastardization of the wording and intent of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court is supposed to be the FINAL arbiter, not the sole arbiter.

[AllosaursRus]

I give you the example of Andrew Jackson, who, when he was informed of a Supreme Court decision that went against "him", was quoted as saying, "John Marshall [the then Chief Justice] has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Why have the pResident swear under oath to, "preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION" if you don't concurrently give him the authority to do so?  The Judicial Branch as the SOLE arbiter of constitutionality or unconstitutionality is a relatively modern - as in Wilsonian era, IIRC - bastardization of the wording and intent of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court is supposed to be the FINAL arbiter, not the sole arbiter.

I hear ya! Unless congress tries to reign this prick in, he's a ****in' dictator! They are responsible for keepin' the Executive Branch in check! So far they are failing miserably!

What will it take for our Republic to get pissed enough we hold him responsible?

You know the first thing that will happen is they will pull the race card! Even the freshmen we sent to this congress will be leery of goin' against that!

The repubs have been trained well in the last four years by their enemies. Unless one of the leaders grows a pair, he's goin' to keep gettin' away with it, too!

Our reps are so afraid of the MSM they have forgotten what they are in DC for. Many of them will not rock the boat in fear they won't be invited to the next DC hoopla or a seat on Face the Nation!

For cryin' out loud, DC has become it's own culture! We get all kinds of promises, then they hit DC and all is forgotten!

Don't know about you, but I've had about enough! I want these ****ers to do what we sent them there for, and I don't want to have to wait until they're ready to do it! They should be raisin' absolute hell, butt they're to squeamish on etiquette!

So in the end, if it gets much worse, we may have to do it ourselves! Sorry to say that, I would rather it happened another way, but we're in big trouble, and I'm not seein' another solution. The left is organized way beyond what we could put together within any time frame. We're in big trouble people!

I don't want to sound like some off the wall conspiracy freak, but think about it. All the unrest in the middle east could be over before we can elect a Pres that gives a shit! And it won't go our way!

Hell, the prick sent Mubarak 2 billion dollars worth of our weapons in 2009, and to tell ya truth, we had to know it was a kettle ready to boil over, or our intelligence is so ****ed up we'll never fix it! Who do ya think those weapons are goin' to be used against if the Muslim BrotherHood takes control?

Who's side do ya think this prick is on? It ain't you and me, I can tell ya that for sure!

[Doc]

I can't believe I'm about to do this.

I have to take issue with you on the above highlighted point, and in so doing, I have to... defend... the actions of the president in this one case.  (I feel like I'm about to choke on my own tongue.)

First:  There is no authority enumerated in Art.I, Sect.8 given to Congress to regulate marriage.  That was specifically reserved to the states, and the local jurisdictions to do with as they saw fit.  As such, his argument that the DOMA is unconstitutional has a strong grounding in constitutional reality.

Second: The framers never intended for the Judicial Branch to be the sole arbiter of what was and what was not constitutional.  If the Executive Branch was enforcing policy outside of the powers granted it within the Constitution, either the Judicial Branch could blow the referee's whistle, or the Legislative Branch could cut the funding to the Executive Branch's activities until the Executive Branch fell back into line.  Likewise for if the Legislative Branch was screwing the people: either the Judicial Branch's referee's whistle or the Executive Branch refusing to enforce an unconstitutional act were considered valid recourse to constitutional misconduct on the part of the Congress.  The point being that the true magnitude of "checks and balances" in our federal system was that each of the three branches was intended to watchdog the other two.

Personally, I think the DOMA was a great set of intentions, but I cannot give it's constitutionality a pass just because I also happen to believe that a marriage should be strictly between one man and one woman.  Also personally, I happen to agree with y'all here that Caliph Barry is doing this solely to keep the queer vote from straying too far from the plantation come 2012; but whether he's doing this for the most hideous and disgusting of self serving reasons or not, he IS doing the right thing, and he's doing the right thing the RIGHT WAY, as far as the constitution is concerned.

I don't like it, but there it is.

Actually D6, you are incorrect about the portions of DOMA that are being litigated.........specifically the portions that are being challenged are directly related to the sovereignty of the states and THEIR rights.  The portion of DOMA that states that if a particular state recognizes "gay marriage", that marriage is not enforceable on a state (such as mine) that has outlawed the practice.

By not defending those portions of DOMA, the DOJ is tacitly approving the ability of a gay married couple in, let's say Iowa (where it is legal), to be forcably recognized here in Missouri (where it is not).

The "General Clause" of DOMA, which simply states that "marriage" is defined as a relationship between a man and woman has not been challenged in the litigation so far, and probably would not meet Constitutional standards as you suggest, however, DOMA DOES contain a "seperation" clause preserving the remainder of the law, should a portion of it be struck down.

It is therefore very much an issue of "States Rights", and therefore beyond the powers vested in the Executive branch, to simply ignore it.

Simply "failure to enforce" on the part of the DOJ, does not mean that the law isn't there.........it simply means that Obama and Holder are collectively "kicking the can down the road" to future administrations and courts.  Such actions IMO, will probably hasten rather than slow a confrontation on the issue.

Can you reciprically imagine if a Republican president simply called a press conference and stated that Roe v Wade is "unconstitutional", and the DOJ is not going to enforce it????


doc

[Duke Nukum]

Attorney General Mark Levin: Won't Enforce Roe v. Wade

Barely twenty-four hours after her inauguration as America's first woman chief executive, President Sarah Palin announced today that Attorney General Mark Levin has been instructed to stop defending Roe v. Wade and abortion in a wave of fresh lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

...