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: 60699
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. 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. 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
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:
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.
Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Impeachable offense.
No,it's not. Not even close.
Yes it is. It is a crime to try to usurp the Supreme court.
HorseHillary! Nobody is usurping the SC. He is just ignoring one of their rulings,not striking it down. Their ruling still stands.
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.
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.
There you have it. You should have stopped there. Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa.
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.
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.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#23)
(Edited)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Impeachable offense.
#3. To: sneakypete (#2)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Yes it is. It is a crime to try to usurp the Supreme court.
#5. To: sneakypete (#4)
#10. To: A K A Stone (#5)
I know you like homos and all.
#13. To: sneakypete (#10)
They have the same rights as you and I or any other US citizen,
#21. To: A K A Stone (#13)
They have the same rights as you and I or any other US citizen,
#23. To: sneakypete (#21)
Not even close. You can't marry your sister,for instance.
Replies to Comment # 23. Playing devils advocate here. Why can't you marry your sister?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]