Gingrich: GOP Should Defund The Attorney General If Obama Won’t Enforce Defense Of Marriage Act

I tend to agree with the former Speaker. Not so much because I’m a proponent of DOMA – far from it, I support gay marriage – but because I don’t think Presidents should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they enforce.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who plans within two weeks to announce if he will run for president, said today that if President Obama doesn’t change his mind and order his Justice Department to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans in Congress should strike back and even consider impeachment proceedings.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

A dangerous precedent, indeed. What use is Congress’ law-making authority if the President can simply choose to stop enforcing them when he chooses? Monarchs can do such things, not the elected representative of constitutional republics.

Obama’s decision on DOMA marks the latest manifestation of a disturbing trend from the President which is little respect for the rule of law. From Obamacare waivers being granted to the very unions that campaigned the hardest for the law to waivers from environmental regulations being granted to the President’s favorite corporate cronies it seems as though Obama feels the law only applies when he decides it applies.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • http://sayanythingblog.com Mountainmouth

    Maybe the Dem legislators will leave the country so they don’t have to vote on that issue –

    • Onslaught1066

      do they need help packing?

    • $8194357

      We wish….

  • Neiman

    I do not like Gingrich at all, he is incredibly intelligent and yet a big mouth with no backbone and no core values; but, he is right – if Holder will not enforce any law passed by Congress or within the Constitution, his department should receive no funds at all until Holder submits to the rule of law and follows his oath. Why not selectively withhold funds? Holder and Lord Obama don’t take hints very well, cut off all funds until Holder or his successor promises to aggressively defend ALL of our laws.

    Gingrich backed away from it earlier today, but he is right that this is grounds for impeachment of Obama, his refusal to uphold and defend all the laws of the land. They won’t dare do it, but this is a high crime IMO.

  • Jimmypop

    the president is the court.

    that is damn scary stuff…imagine if bush did this…the cry would be on a loop and all the alphabet soups.

    • PatriotMark

      A federal district court in Massachusetts ruled the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 as unconstitutional in July 2010.

      The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

      Judge Joseph L. Tauro agreed that DOMA forces the state to discriminate against its own citizens and ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

      He also struck down DOMA on Tenth Amendment grounds, stating that marriage is the province of the states, not the federal government. This is a bit of a “pie-in-your-eye” to conservatives: the Tenth Amendment is basically an anti-federalism “states’ rights” amendment. Judge Tauro basically took it and said “States’ rights? You got it. States get to decide who gets ‘married'; not the federal government.”

  • $8194357

    Barrys stated goal back in the 90’s on NPR radio was to see what the Fed Government could do to its citizenry instead of all those negetive shall nots the old rich white guys wrote in the Constitution…He is following his agenda to the letter to see how much we will give before we revolt and he can declare marshall law….In 2006 or 2007 the Democratic majority had a bill drafted to do away with the two term limit of the Presidency and set aside for later hit the ground running overloading the existing system and attack on multiple fronts the rule of law Constitutional Republic in an effort to complete the change over to a majority rule socialist democracy, with the foundations of totalitarian dictatorship laws ready to go when they usurped the excisting system….Folks have been asleep as far as politics while these leftists have laid the groundwork since the Marxist New Left took over the Democratic Party in the 60’s and 70’s. These folks are totalitarian communists on a mission to destroy our Rule of Law Republic with Saul Alinsky community organizing tactics along with Cloward/Piven overload and destroy the excisting systems of government to replace it with the new lefts version of utopia and international global citizenship…The have been at it since before little commie Barry was even born into his communist loving family…It is treasonist that no one in the media didn’t do the background searches to show the radicle agenda and past of this usurper as I found it in several weeks of digging and searching. His presentaiton to the masses as a centrist unifier was the typical leftist 180…His real up bringing and agenda is a total deconstruction of the excisting culture to replace it with a modern day leftist third world one world agenda….All DC politicians are guilty by association if not direct participation in this Non Natural Born Dual Citizen of the worlds sitting where he is and watching or helping him do his dirty work…Anyone who is that dang dumb shouldn’t be running the country in the first place. Calling it a debt ceiling still means digging a deeper hole for crying out loud…Take the shovels away from Lenins usefull idiots and let the conservitive Constituionalists try and fix the damage that started back with FDR putting the central planning soviet style large and powerfull federal government in control in the first place. The founders warned about all of this and revisionist history and democracy indoctrination along with Marxist Social Justice replaced our system of Limited Federal Power along with individual liberties being state granted and not God Given…It’s time to get back to what worked or move on and let them have their way…UN one world control for the common good of mankind while it is elitist driven along with the control of the natural resources being usurped to the central planners benifit as well…And NO I am not even ranting just sitting here wondering what the heck happened to American History and corrupted politics as buisness as usual….God Bless and may He keep you and yours in these globle times of turmoil and trouble…

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Did I see the magic word “impeachment?”

  • WOOF

    The law is being enforced. You think with lies.
    It’s your comfort food.

    “Obama and the rest of the executive branch and are enforcing DOMA and will continue to do so until it is repealed by Congress or struck down by the Supreme Court. DOMA is still the law and is being enforced as such for the forseeable future.

    What has changed is that Obama’s Department of Justice is no longer going to spend time and effort defending DOMA section 3 from challenges in court.”
    http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/02/25/wow-that-was-stupid/

    • robert108

      It’s the job of the Executive Branch to enforce and UPHOLD the laws that the legislature passes. The President doesn’t get to be a scofflaw and decide which laws should be upheld. That’s totalitarianism.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Mountainmouth

        The rules don’t apply to the ruling class

    • Lgbpop

      Nice try, but posting opinion from a blog from another idiot as evidence to back up your position isn’t exactly reassuring me of anything. Seems to me the Supreme Court is the arbiter of things constitutional, not our Chief Executive. It’s in there, right along with a woman’s right to an abortion and the right of government employees to collective bargaining.

      • WOOF

        The Attorney general writes to John-Boehner:
        that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. …
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/49404879/Attorney-General-Holder-s-Letter-to-John-Boehner-on-DOMA-Appeal
        How many idiots on the Supreme Court Lgbpop?
        Today? Tomorow?

        • $8194357

          All the leftist leaning ones?

        • Lgbpop

          Nice straw man, but that’s not what I was commenting on. However, since you post THAT piece if circular logic let’s have a look at the very first sentence…

          “After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of
          the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
          (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. §7,1 as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state
          law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

          It’s not within his contitutionally-enumerated powers to determine a law unconstitutional. That may be his opinion but he doesn’t have the power to make his opinion legally binding. His oath of office does require him to uphold AND defend the Constitution and the laws of the country enacted under its guidelines. So, the rest of the letter which explains what is going to happen to this “unconstitutional” law is all based on an illegal assumption of unconstitutionality.

          Keep trying. I was wondering how I would get some laughs today, and you are doing just fine.

          • WOOF

            He leaves legally binding where it should be, with the courts.
            No uphold
            “I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

          • Lgbpop

            As Jim Carville used to say, “when a guy’s trying to hang himself just hand him some more rope.” Your statement doesn’t have anything to do with my point, Einstein; the first sentence of Holder’s letter says the President has determined the law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It isn’t Obama’s job to do that, he is Chief Executive, not Chief Justice.

            I do thank you for showing everyone the mental capacity of an Obama supporter, though.

  • Bat One

    What is needed is for the people to replace the politicians with leaders. Starting at the top.

    • one common goal

      I could not agree more.

      As for my self I have had enough of our CORPORATE run political puppets. They now believe they have the right and power to completely destroy us. Their excessive greed and race for power has become so shamefully corrupt they no longer feel the need to attempt to cover it up or conceal it. Do they honestly think we the tax paying AMERICAN public are that stupid. NEWS FLASH we are not and nor or our children.
      They fail to understand what power comes from the unity of that which is formed by just ONE simple COMMON GOAL.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    In one pundits view, President Obama doesn’t have the experience to defend marriage.

    2 gop 5 wives

  • Mike_Adamson

    There’s a difference between not enforcing a law and not defending a law in court…Chief Justice Roberts can explain it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702394.html

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      Thank you Mike.

    • Neiman

      The worst written article I have read in some time! The author never made his point very clear.

      Nonetheless, no Supreme Court Justice is God or always knows or promotes the truth, they are all frail, fallible people, all of them; most of the time, pontificating on issues about which they are grossly ignorant and biased. They are a separate branch of government, the other two are not in any way inferior or subservient to them.

      People are free to play word games, engaging in gold medal level semantic gymnastics to defend the indefensible; but, no matter how much they twist words to falsely prove a point, the question and answer here is clear – both Prince John Obama and his High Sheriff Holder, gave their most solemn oath to support and defend all the laws of this nation with full vigor. They are not free to defend only some of them or some with less passion than others, but all of them; or if unable to defend them all, they must either resign from office or seek to change the law through Congress and until then to defend every law to the very best of their ability. Or, IMO they are guilty of malfeasance of office and subject to impeachment.

      Either we are a nation of Law or we are subject to the whims of frail men. If the latter we must sooner or later fall under the tyranny of evil men and face the fall of our nation.

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        Old Pal, the article was well written, the points were made clearly.

        Doncha think it’s rather bush like that the new guy is doing exactly what the old guy did?

        • Neiman

          Why are you so obtuse, so criminally stupid as to think I will ever answer a question from you when you insist upon offending me with that vile name calling? Apologize, stop calling me that most disgusting name and you’ll get lots of answers. Now go away, I do not give an infinitesimal damn what you and your father in hell think about anything!

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            So you think it’s bush like, Old Pal?

          • Neiman

            No, I am sorry, I apologize, I must not have communicated clearly: I think you area criminally obtuse, pathological lying, demon possessed pile of excrement without any redeeming value of any kind and are sucking up good air better used by a real human being.

            Now go away, I do not give an infinitesimal damn what you and your father in hell think about anything and I am damn tired of your high jacking threads because of your stalking me and your obsessive gay love for me which I constantly spurn!

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Old Pal, if you don’t know if President Obama is doing the same thing that your Lord bush did, just say so.

            I will understand.

          • Neiman

            No, I am sorry, I apologize, I must not have communicated clearly: I think you area criminally obtuse, pathological lying, demon possessed pile of excrement without any redeeming value of any kind and are sucking up good air better used by a real human being.

            Now go away, I do not give an infinitesimal damn what you and your father in hell think about anything and I am damn tired of your high jacking threads because of your stalking me and your obsessive gay love for me which I constantly spurn!

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Old Pal, your letters are dark again and the line under the letters jumps from one paragraph to the other.

            I was looking for an answer, but as usual, you can’t come up with one.
            Oh well, we’ll chat more later.

          • Neiman

            PISSANT!

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            UH-OH, your letters are big and they are dark!

            Really Old Pal, if you don’t know if President Obama is doing the same thing as your Lord bush, why not ask someone?

          • Neiman

            I have a question for you – why do you play these games? You know I will not answer when you call me names, especially that most damnable reference to being your pal. Why do you keep coming back with these asinine one-liners, these most damnable lies and high jack threads for no purpose. That is why, among other things I know absolutely that you are demon possessed. You do not want answers or to discuss issues, you only play damnable, most hellish games.

            Please leave me alone, I hate everything you believe and write, you are not human, you are excrement. Please leave me alone!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4RKUEHF3NG2Z32RT4B5A3Y7HUE Kenny

        Actually, I felt the article made its point rather convincingly. There is a difference between refusing to enforce the law (which means prosecute people who break it, assess fines, or make sure its provisions are followed) and defend it against legal challenges in court.

        And, while I am no fan of Obama, his oath is to uphold and support the Constitution. If he genuinely believes, even in error, that this law violates it, then he is simply upholding his oath.

        “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

        Every President makes it clear that there are laws in place which he does not like and which need to go or be dramatically altered. Some of the changes are bad, others good, others mixed or neutral. But to claim a President is violating his oath by allowing (what he believes) to be bad law to fall by the wayside…well, that’s eyebrow raising to say the least. One of the greatest Presidents of all time, Thomas Jefferson let the Alien and Sedition Acts expire, refused to enforce them until they did, and actually pardoned every single person convicted under them.

        While the DOMA is certainly no Alien and Sedition Acts, and Obama is certainly no Jefferson, the idea that the President has never been an opponent of a law is historically inaccurate. And curious…at best.

    • robert108

      There is a difference, but the Executive Branch is required to do both; it’s not a matter of personal choice by the President as to which laws he will uphold and which ones he won’t. That makes him the Judicial Branch.

      • Mike_Adamson

        I would have agreed with you up til now but Outside The Beltway has this list of cases where the DOJ acted in this very manner.

        http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/presidential-decisions-not-to-defend-the-constitutionality-of-federal-law-a-brief-history/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+OTB+(Outside+The+Beltway+|+OTB)

        It seems if the government won’t argue a case then the Court appoints somebody else to do so.

        • robert108

          So, in your view, one wrong justifies another? Look up the definition of “executive”. The Legislature passes laws, the Executive enforces and upholds them, and the Judicial decides on their Constitutionality. owebama seems to want to do all three.

          • Mike_Adamson

            My view is that I don’t know on what basis or in what circumstances the Executive can decline to defend a law in a court room but it has certainly happened before with little fallout or consternation. If you can point me to a contrary legal opinion I’d be interested in reading it.

          • robert108

            The President has clearly stated his reason for not upholding this law, and he is usurping the job of the Judicial Branch. Nothing mysterious here. He’s not a Supreme Court Justice.

  • awfulorv

    It is no surprise to those of us who listened to what he said, saw who he surrounded himself with, and observed the barely legal, and outright illegal, means he, and his supporters, used to get him elected but, for Gods sake, can the rest of you not see, that he, and his tribe, are a danger to this countries’ very existence if this lawlessness continues? We understand that most of you have absorbed a daily ration from your teachers, from grade one, not to expect too much from the Rashons, the Willies, and their like, usually the slowest kids in your classes. “Let’s push him forward, to replace the civility he would have acquired had he been born of another color”, was the accepted mantra. So you idiots actually gave an affirmative action, ” Push to the front” phony, stewardship of this great country because, well,” someone from his race deserved a shot”. Was that,really,a good enough reason to elect him? And now, when he’s observed trampling on our laws, and freedoms, you still persist in defending this mobster from , appropriately enough, Chicago. He has broken, and is breaking, law after law. He has stolen from the treasury and enriched his Democratic, Union, and racial friends, and comrades. And yet you think it is, and would be, “unseemly” to bring charges of impeachment against him , simply because you cannot get beyond what was wadded into your brains years ago? I have grandchildren which will likely have their lives jeopardized by these usurpers, and yet, many of you Liberal Quislings continue to preach moderation towards his every action, largely because he’s half black. I say, as the king of Egypt was formerly addressed, Farouk you.

  • Boo

    Since Obama has never said he won’t enforce the law, this article rests on a mistaken premise. All he said is the Justice Department won’t write briefs defending a law they think is unconstitutional. If they think the law is unconstitutional, they can’t write a brief defending its constitutionality without lying. Therefore, they can’t write any briefs.

    • robert108

      Not their job to make that judgment. BTW, since a court has already ruled owebamacare unConstitutional, will they refuse to uphold it, as well?

      • Boo

        Reading comprehension is your friend, Robert 108.

        They are upholding the law as long as it’s law. Please stop repeating the lie that they are not enforcing this law. They are enforcing the law. They are not invalidating the law. They are not overturning it by declaring it unconstitutional. They are simply not defending it in court by attempting to explain why its constitutional, because they believe it is not constitutional. Please explain how one writes a legal brief which lays out the reasons why a particular law is constitutional if one does not know how a law is constitutional?

Top