[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Obama, DOJ Say Part Of DOMA Is Unconstitutional, Will Not Defend It In Court (SCOTUS replaced by O'buma) 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 While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.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
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 # 42.
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
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.
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 42. End Trace Mode for Comment # 42.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|