U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Obama, DOJ Say Part Of DOMA Is Unconstitutional, Will Not Defend It In Court (SCOTUS replaced by O'buma)
Source:
TPMMuckraker
URL Source: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme ... ill_not_defend_it_in_court.php
Published: Feb 23, 2011
Author: Ryan J. Reilly
Post Date: 2011-02-23 13:38:12 by Hondo68
Ping List: *The Two Parties ARE the Same* Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Keywords: Obama Justice Department, will not defend the, Defense of Marriage Act
Views: 61748
Comments: 59
The Obama Justice Department has decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.
"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," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
"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," Holder said. "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."
Holder also announced that he sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and congressional leaders about his decision.
"While the Department has previously defended DOMA against legal challenges involving legally married same-sex couples, recent lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 have caused the President and the Department to conduct a new examination of the defense of this provision," Holder wrote to lawmakers.
"As described more fully below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional," he wrote (full letter here).
TPM's previous DOMA coverage is here.
Here's the full statement from Attorney General Holder.
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.
Poster Comment:
The Defense Of Marriage act has been declared unconstitutional by hObama. Didn't the Supreme Court used to make these decisions?
"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper" ~George W. Bush (1 image)
Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-4) not displayed.
.
.
.
I know you like homos and all. But that is no exescuse for the President of the United States who is charged with defending the laws of the United States, to stop defending a law so that there is no opposition in court so that he hopes it will fall.
It is an impeachable offense. All congress has to do is vote on it and a simple majority and he is impeached.
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
The Defense Of Marriage act has been declared unconstitutional by hObama. Didn't the Supreme Court used to make these decisions?
Jefferson refused to enforce any law with which he disagreed. Ditto Andrew Jackson.
That said, a POTUS takes an oath to uphold the USCON, in general, not specific legislation. What the President has decided to do or rather, not do, is to be an advocate for a law with which he does not believe is a constitutional exercise of power.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Impeachable offense.
Ping Happy Quannza the next time you want to be a drama queen. He'll ahve a video for you.
The US COngress has no business deciding "marriage".
None.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Yes it is. It is a crime to try to usurp the Supreme court.
The case isn't before the SCOTUS.
#9. To: war (#7)
The piece of shit occupying the white house has no business redefining words.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#5)
I know you like homos and all.
No,I don't "like homos". I have known a couple that I liked,but haven't cared one way or another about most of the ones I am related to or otherwise know personally. I most definitely don't socialize with them or personally approve of their life styles.
Then again,their freedoms and rights are not dependent on my approval.
Or yours.
They have the same rights as you and I or any other US citizen,and none of their OR our rights are dependent on the approval or anyone. We all were born with these rights,and it says so right in the Bill of Rights.
But that is no exescuse for the President of the United States who is charged with defending the laws of the United States, to stop defending a law so that there is no opposition in court so that he hopes it will fall.
Yeah,there is. First off,he is "the boss" when it comes to federal laws.
Secondly,every president in history has done the same thing at one time or another. You are just pissed off this time because it conflicts with your religious viewpoints.
I bet you would be applauding a Republican President that ordered the BATF to be disbanded,and ordered the alleged Justice Department to stop prosecuting any violations of GCA-68.
Or that ordered the alleged Justice Dept to refuse to prosecute any violations of the Civil Wrongs Act of 1964,or any of it's step-children,like AA laws,racial quotas,racial setasides,etc,etc,etc.
I know I would.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
The piece of shit occupying the white house has no business redefining words.
What word is being "redefined".
#12. To: war (#11)
You're dumb....dumb.....dumb.dumb.dumb
#13. To: sneakypete (#10)
They have the same rights as you and I or any other US citizen,
There you have it. You should have stopped there. Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#12)
You're dumb....dumb.....dumb.dumb.dumb
Please. You ain't lighting no refrigerators with the electricity you generate...
#15. To: A K A Stone (#13)
Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa.
Now who's being "dumb"?
Hint: The same one who has been all along...you.
A Father cannot marry his Daughter grown or not...
#16. To: war (#15)
Hint: The same one who has been all along...you.A Father cannot marry his Daughter grown or not...
You support limiting people on who they can mary? I'm shocked shocked.
Ok there is that exception. Good that you brought it up. Proving there are exceptions.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#16)
You support limiting people on who they can mary? I'm shocked shocked.
Are you seeing things that aren't there?
Ok there is that exception. Good that you brought it up. Proving there are exceptions.
This exception is based in science not closemindedness. As society changes, its institutions change. Marriage could never occur between a black and white was once a prvailing belief and if you ask Rattberg he'd tell you that he still believes in that.
Society changed.
It's changing now.
You can ignore that to your own agida. Apparently, you will.
Y
#18. To: war (#17)
You can stick your penis up Freds butt all day long if you want. But it wont produce a child. Marriage is an institution for bringing fourth the next generation and creating families. Two perverts playing pack the fudge is not a family. No not Fred Mertz it is just a name.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#18)
But it wont produce a child. Marriage is an institution for bringing fourth the next generation and creating families. Two perverts playing pack the fudge is not a family.
So then senior widows/widowers and those unable to reproduce shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
#20. To: go65, A K A Stone (#19) (Edited)
But it wont produce a child. Marriage is an institution for bringing fourth the next generation and creating families.
Not all women and not all men are capable of producing children. Should they be banned from marrying? Or is your restriction based strictly on "theory" rather than reality?
#21. To: A K A Stone (#13)
They have the same rights as you and I or any other US citizen,There you have it. You should have stopped there. Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa.
Not even close. You can't marry your sister,for instance.
If you had stated "any man can get married" or "any woman can get married" you would have been correct. Who you marry is maybe THE most personal decision you will ever make,and the government has no business interfering in this VERY personal decision.
I have a hard time believing anybody that considers themselves to be a conservative would stand up and DEMAND the government step in and tell individual citizens who they can and who they can not marry. Other than minors,mental defectives,and close blood relatives,it is none of the freaking governments business who marries who.
If you think it is,you are NOT a conservative.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#22. To: war (#17)
Marriage could never occur between a black and white was once a prvailing belief and if you ask Rattberg he'd tell you that he still believes in that.
AND......,he has a RIGHT to believe that and to live that way.
He just doesn't have a right to demand it be made into law.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#23. To: sneakypete (#21)
Not even close. You can't marry your sister,for instance.
Playing devils advocate here. Why can't you marry your sister? Don't they have the same rights as normal people.
I'll add this also. A brother marrying a sister is less perverted then a man pretending to marry another man.
#24. To: sneakypete (#21)
Pete. Lets just say this. I'm not going to argue this with you. Your opinion is wrong. You are hypocrite in not supporting brother sister marriage. We will never agree because you have no moral sense on this issue.
I agree with you on other stuff but on this you are wrong, and no amount of twisting is going to make you right.
No sense talking about it anymore. We've had this discussion before. Look forward to agreeing with you on other issues.
#25. To: war (#20)
Not all women and not all men are capable of producing children. Should they be banned from marrying?
Of course not.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#18)
You can stick your penis up Freds butt all day long if you want. But it wont produce a child.
Neither will a marriage to a man shooting blanks or to a infertile woman.
Neither will a marriage between seniors.
Are you saying there should be laws against these people getting married?
Marriage is an institution for bringing fourth the next generation....
Do you think there should be a federal law DEMANDING married people have babies?
You are confusing your religious beliefs with conservative political beliefs. They are NOT the same thing by a VERY wide margin. The only freedom in religious cults is the freedom to live and belief what you are told to live and believe.
.....and creating families.
And the instant a homo couple gets married,they just created a new family.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#23) (Edited)
Playing devils advocate here. Why can't you marry your sister?
Because your children would be idiots that would vote for the next Bush.
I'll add this also. A brother marrying a sister is less perverted then a man pretending to marry another man.
Both are a perversion in MY mind.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#24)
You are hypocrite in not supporting brother sister marriage. We will never agree because you have no moral sense on this issue.
ROFLMAO! YOU are the one that doesn't see anything wrong with marrying your sister,and YOU are the one that wants the government to punish people who are not related for wanting to marry,and *I* am the one with no moral sense?
Does the government also have the right to tell you how to live your life in other aspects?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#25) (Edited)
That union has no more chance of producing a child than that of two men or two women.
So, having children is really just a cover for your bias against homosexuals.
#30. To: war (#29)
I am biased against homos. So what. They are disease carriers and spreaders. They are the primary molesters of little boys. I am biassed against their behavior not any thing they were born with.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
To: war I am biased against homos. So what. They are disease carriers and spreaders. They are the primary molesters of little boys. I am biassed against their behavior not any thing they were born with.
Pedophilia is illegal in all states ....at least in the lower 48 and HI.... I'm not sure about anything concerning Alaska anymore. If you are aware of such actions it's your duty to let law enforcement know about it.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
#32. To: A K A Stone (#30)
I am biased against homos. So what.
You can have any bias you close minded little "Jesus Loves Me So I Hate Everyone Else" heart desires. Just keep it out of the law.
#33. To: war (#32)
Call me a hater again and I will remove you.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
You've said that you hate homos. Why would you "remove" me for repeating back to me what you've previously said?
And, as you've previously been told. I could care less about your threats. I don't take the internet seriously. Remove me. Don't. It's your dime and your acts here speak directly to you and not to me.
I could care less what you do or don't do and what I "say" here isn't going to be held hostage to those whims - espcially since posters like No Gnu Rattbergs has posted his bullshit here unabated for as long as he has.
#35. To: war, Aka Stone (#34)
Deleted By A K A Stone Off topic
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
#36. To: Rek (#35)
Deleted by A K A Stone off topic
#37. To: war (#34)
Please show me where I said that.
#38. To: All (#36) (Edited)
DELETED BY STONE OFF TOPIC
#39. To: war (#38)
DELETED OFF TOPIC
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
#40. To: war (#38)
DELETED OFF TOPIC
#41. To: war (#38)
THIS IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD DELETED
#42. To: war, Fred Mertz (#6)
That said, a POTUS takes an oath to uphold the USCON, in general, not specific legislation.
Now that I think about it that is correct. The POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer and I know the police have the ability to select which laws they enforce or not on a local level so it makes sense the POTUS also has this power. Also, Congress can defund a law without striking it down - sort of the same thing.
I actually support the law but it's no big deal. I think it should be up to each state to decide what is or is not a marriage. Some Libertarians want the govt to get out of the marriage business all together as was the case over 100 years ago,
Marriage licenses, etc were part of the eugenics movement of the late 1800s early 1900s - first designed to prevent mixed marriages and then designed to prevent the marriage of people with hereditary diseases. Which is why you see in old movies a blood test being taken to see if they couple were "compatible".
That ended I think in the 60s or 70s.
Interracial marriage was also made legal just recently and we have a case of the justice of the peace in Louisiana make headlines a couple of years ago because he refused to marry an mixed race couple.
So I am open to that libertarian view.
If not for the tax breaks married couples get this issue this would not be a point of discrimination.
One innovative way the GOP could have eliminated any discrimination claim is to eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
That I find kind of funny that the GOP's slavish devotion to low taxes made it easier to sell gay marriage to the courts.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
#43. To: war, Murron (#38)
Your comment was not on the title of the thread. You people complain about that, then when I do something about it you whine about it. Just like the nasty note I got from Murron the other day. She quit too. There is no satisfying everyone.
#44. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#5)
I know you like homos and all.
Oh yeah! Sneaky just loves me. Right sneaky? :-)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#43)
.
.
.
Comments (46 - 59) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]