Obama and Holder Declare DOMA Unconstitutional

**scared2mosh** · 02-25-2011, 10:28 AM

I'm actually gunna agree with Obama on this one... regardless of whether or not he is acting beyond his actual control.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I am not in favor of the legalization of gay "marriages"... however. I do believe that if the union of two people does not hurt anyone else the GOV has no right to stop them (basically I think all victimless crimes are BS). I'm in favor of just calling it something else and giving them all the rights a married couple would have... other than having children maybe.

But I'm off topic now so I'll shut up.

Jfool · 02-25-2011, 10:39 AM

Actually, I personally agree, but I'd like to see a court challenge. I've argued before that there would be an easy solution if the government would only leave "marriage" out of it and equalize tax codes and benefits for all. Then all you would have left are GLB activists barking up the tree of religious freedom.

**slap_j** · 02-25-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jfool

But when that "someone" takes up the case, it would be brought to the DOJ and they would decide, yes?

Presumably it will end up in front of the Supreme Court at some point. They will have the final word on whether it is constitutional. Of course it is possible for them to overturn themselves at a later date.

JerryLove · 02-25-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jfool

I'm still a little confused. Eric Holder can opine about the landscape all he wants, but does he get to act on his own impulses? Isn't that what court challenges are for? What's to stop him from just suspending any enforcement that he has a personal beef with?

Has anyone suspended enforcement? I've not seen that mentioned.

JerryLove · 02-25-2011, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jfool

Andrew Jackson's treatment of the indians.

With the exception of the trail of tears (a violation of treaty), opression / murder of the Indians *was* a foundation of this country.

Jfool · 02-25-2011, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Has anyone suspended enforcement? I've not seen that mentioned.

"defense"... sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

With the exception of the trail of tears (a violation of treaty), opression / murder of the Indians *was* a foundation of this country.

Agreed. Andrew Jackson raised it to an art.

JerryLove · 02-25-2011, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jfool

"defense"... sorry.

No worries.

Surely though this is something that *must* be under executive discretion; otherwise every issue will always be faught until it is in front of the supreme court.

Besides: what happens when something is passed that *is* unconstitutional (without making a claim that this is or is not, assume some hypothetical law). Is the executive required morally to continue to argue the constitutionality of something which is, in fact, not constitutional? Or are they allowed to sit back and let the courts work?

It's not like some one else could not defend the law as a friend of the court.

Rutledri · 04-07-2011, 11:20 PM

Yep and for our President to order the AG to ignore a law passed by the Legislative branch by THEM deeming it unconstitutional not the courts that boys and girls IS what was unconstitutional!
Here is my Congressional reps personal letter to me on this matter offering some clarification of the presidents current position. I was shocked to get this from a liberal Democrat and I now have a new respect for her!

Dear Mr. Rutledge:

Thank you for contacting me about the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you know, DOMA was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. The bill states that the federal government recognizes marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The bill also allows for states to refuse to recognize any union other than one man and one woman as marriage.

Several lawsuits have been filed against DOMA since its passage, and in November, 2010, two new suits were filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. This court lacks precedent in determining whether or not gays and lesbians should be treated as a protected class, which would afford them legal protection against discriminatory laws. In assessing these cases, President Obama and Attorney General Holder have determined that gays and lesbians do in fact merit greater protection. They have therefore directed Justice Department lawyers not to defend the law, which is contrary to customary practice when federal laws are challenged in court. As a result, Congress may appoint lawyers to defend the law, and independent organizations could also defend the law.

Please be assured that I will continue to monitor developments concerning this issue.

I always appreciate hearing the views of constituents about issues facing Congress. Please feel free to contact my office if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other matter of concern.

Sincerely,
Terri Sewell
Member of Congress

**thesteve** · 04-07-2011, 11:58 PM

Technically they haven't deemed it unconstitutional. They've just determined that there is no precedent available for its defense and therefore have instructed federal attorneys to stop defending something that they don't have a legal defense for.

From what I understand, this is the same thing as what is going on in California with the Prop 8 court battle.

Demon_Hunter · 04-08-2011, 04:42 AM

You know, when you wake up to find that the president and the attorney general are conspiring to grant equal rights and privileges to a group of American citizens, on par with those rights and privileges of other groups of citizens, by not defending (the law is being enforced, sadly) a terrible and malicious federal law, well, I fear for the future of this nation. I'm afraid now that I could wake up tommorow, and find my self in a land governed by reason, compassion, and justice.

Yeah...

JerryLove · 04-08-2011, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rutledri

Yep and for our President to order the AG to ignore a law passed by the Legislative branch by THEM deeming it unconstitutional not the courts that boys and girls IS what was unconstitutional!

Which part of the constitution specifically? Could you quote the text?

Bryan · 04-18-2011, 01:16 PM

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...titutional.php

but a federal judge DID rule Section 3 of DOMA as violating the 10th amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. So President Obama and AG Holder should cease enforcement of at least Section 3 of DOMA. Additionally, there is NO requirement that they appeal the case to a higher court.