Newt Gingrich is accusing President Obama of being a “one person Supreme Court” in his order for the justice department to stop enforcing the laws because Obama thought the law was unconstitutional.
Naturally, the blogosphere is particularly sensitive about constitutional issues. Bloggers are weighing in on this and many are commenting on the constitutional issues.
We know all government employees swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The Yeshiva World News reports Newt sees a real problem: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Crooks and Liars has a problem with Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck criticizing Obama over his orders to the Justice department: Apparently the two of them have a little trouble telling the difference between enforcing a law and defending that law in court.
The Constitution says the Executive branch is in charge of enforcing all laws. The Judicial branch of the government is the branch that decides if a law is constitutional or not.
The Say Anything Blog agrees with Newt, but not on most of his issues: 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.
Newt Gingrich is now pressing the House of Representatives to start impeachment proceedings if the President does not withdraw his order not to defend DOMA.
Interestingly, a spokesman for Newt has backpedaled a little. He said that Newt does not think a dire constitutional crisis is happening at the moment and he is notcalling for an immediate impeachment of the President.
This is clearly a developing issue as Newt is supposed to announce a few weeks whether or not he will toss his hat in the presidential primary ring.
Comments
Newt Gingrich failed to enforce the sanctity of marriage when he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife. He is a miserable HYPOCRITE! May the Lord have mercy on him.
from the man who cry "impeach" clinton, while he is screwing his mistress. you heard it!!! newt @!#%^
If they had never voted an illegal in in the first place. This probably wouldn't have become an issue.
Newt is right. A constitutional crisis has clearly been triggered by the President's unlawful actions, (even if the left can't seem to understand simple Separation of Powers principles). Indeed, the idea that each branch gets to decide for itself what is or is not constitutional has since Marbury v. Madison long been discredited; (see http://stopjudicialactivism.us/Page2.html ) Further, the inevitable outcome of this “Executive Decision” of the President is to insure more cultural combat on this issue in much the same way as the infamous 'Dred Scott" decision predating the American Civil War did. And wasn't it the left who accused President Reagan of committing an impeachable offense when he was alleged to have decided, in the interest of national security, to eschew Congress' intent to defund the Contras? Of course, hypocrisy has never bothered the left. They prove their hypocrisy and lack of principle, when, not being successful in pushing their agenda through the Democratic process, they scheme to use the courts to ram their agenda down our throats, (no pun intended). This is just one more step in a complete disavowal of American law and principles upon which our nation was founded and a step towards unmitigated consolidation of power in the Federal government and judiciary. (http://americanlawandpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/obama-and-doma-rule-by-...).
The President's decision was not "unlawful." In fact, there is a strong legal precedent for what the administration is doing. Some examples of Presidents taking the position that a law is unconstitutional and refusing to defend that law in Court are U.S. v. Lovett (1946) and more recently, Bowsher v. Synar, (1986) and Agostini v. Felton (1997). And since you are familiar with Marbury v. Madison, it surprises me that you seem unaware of how Judicial Review actually works. One of the central roles of the Judicial Branch is to protect citizens from infringement of their constitutional rights. The Constitution, of course, is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the lesser laws enacted by the Legislative Branch are subject to its mandates.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!