[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Asked directly whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty. Clearly it’s a violation of his constitutional oath. Clearly it is not something that can be allowed to stand."
(A Gingrich spokesman stressed after the interview that we are not currently in a constitutional crisis, nor was Gingrich calling for the direct impeachment of the president. His statements were meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media.)
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.
port Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker? Vote Here Now.
Top News
* Wisconsin Union Vote Sets Up Budget Showdown * Huckabee: Obamacare Frankenstein Shouldn't Have Left the Lab * Walker Dispatches Troopers to Find Wayward Democrats * $15 Gas at the Pump Possible If Mideast Meltdown Continues * Obama's Poll Numbers Plunge as Revolt Against Unions Spreads
Sponsors
* I had High Blood Pressure- Now I Don't in 3 Weeks! * $500,000 of Term Life Coverage for less than $22/mo * 5 Warning Signs The Rally Could Be Over * Turn $5,000 into $1,057,887 in the next 24 months! * 'Your Belly or Your Life!' said Doc. How I Lost It. * Eat this and the Fat Pours out of You? * 5 Foods that Kill Fat? * Male Enhancement Exposed - Pilot Tells His Secret * Investor Alert: Bankrupt Dad makes $20K in 30 days * Breakthrough Cholesterol Solution Beats Statins * Obama’s War on Your Retirement is Here * How Private Is Your Banking? Special Report * Wife Finds Her Husband's Cure for ED
Home > Headline
Share this story with your friends Tweet about this story. Print Page | Forward Page | E-mail Us Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment Friday, 25 Feb 2011 02:53 PM Article Font Size
By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Asked directly whether President Obama could be subject to articles of impeachment, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get to much later. But I think clearly it is a dereliction of duty. Clearly it’s a violation of his constitutional oath. Clearly it is not something that can be allowed to stand."
(A Gingrich spokesman stressed after the interview that we are not currently in a constitutional crisis, nor was Gingrich calling for the direct impeachment of the president. His statements were meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media.)
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.
Story continues below video.
“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.
“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.
“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.
“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich said it is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
“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.
“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."
Gingrich adds: “I don’t think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. I think they didn’t understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Would Gingrich have voted to impeach Reagan over this: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43400 For a guy who claims to be a historian, Gingrich is a tool.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
BTW, Gingrich's office issued this "clarification" after the Newsmax story ran: Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Poor Newt sounds like he's coming down with Alzheimers.
"Am I for or against abstinence?" - Sarah Palin
I guess he's never heard of signing statements either. Maybe he needs to retake Poli Sci 101.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|