Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Obama 'We'll decide What's Constitutional And Pick Which Laws We Enforce'

That, of course, was essentially what President Obama is saying when he has his Justice Department announce that they are no longer going to prosecute any cases covered by ex-President Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Behold the wit and wisdom of Eric Holder, our Attorney General:

The President has..concluded 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.

Barack Hussein Obama: President, Congress and all nine Supreme court Justices rolled into one!

I am not addressing DOMA here. Like almost all of President Bill Clinton's handful of accomplishments while in office, DOMA was a weak, ineffectual half measure - neither hot nor cold, and almost bound to be spewed out of the mouth of the body politic at some point to paraphrase Scripture.

But it was, nevertheless, settled law. And here we have a sitting President and his Attorney General who have unilaterally decided that they don't feel like enforcing a Federal law on the books, so they simply won't.

Even worse than the arrogance and the contempt for powers reserved to the legislative and judicial branches of government is the implied suggestion that everyone else but the President and his Attorney General are stupid. The cases involved that Holder says the Justice Department is going to 'continue to represent the interests of the United States' in both challenge DOMA's constitutionality regarding Section 3, which deals with benefits.

Since Holder and Obama just said they agree with the plaintiffs that DOMA is unconstitutional, exactly what 'interests' are there for them to defend?

I seem to recall that both swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to enforce the law of the land. Obviously, partisan politics and their personal feelings about a given law take precedence over that.

(hat tip memeorandum)

please helps me write more gooder!

1 comment:

louielouie said...

can we call him chancellor palpatine yet?