NOM BLOG

Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

 

From Newsmax.com:

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. (Continue reading.)

(Source: www.Newsmax.com)

11 Comments

  1. Combatvet
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    He is enforcing the law- except for the part the judicial branch declared unconstitutional? Sounds responsible to me. If plain were president??? What if bananas had toes... This is way too far a stretch there newt. Almost like all the bogus society-ending what if children stories I've heard here and in recent cases. Find GOOD arguments!

  2. Don
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    Of course, at this point, there is no question that an impeachment investigation of Obama should be initiated by the House. This is simply one more in a long series of unlawful, unconstitutional or dereliction of duty actions by Obama. Enough is enough! What is it going to take, House Republicans?

  3. Posted February 25, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    He is enforcing the law- except for the part the judicial branch declared unconstitutional? Sounds responsible to me. If plain were president??? What if bananas had toes... This is way too far a stretch there newt. Almost like all the bogus society-ending what if children stories I've heard here and in recent cases. Find GOOD arguments!

    The problem is, the judicial branch had not exhausted all avenues of judicial review. In fact, two other courts had ruled DOMA constitutional in In Re Kandu and Wilson v. Ake .

  4. Barb
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    Newt is correct on all points. If any Republican did something like this the one-party media would tear them apart.

  5. Combatvet
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    Michael- those other cases weren't on section 3 of DOMA. Which is rules unconstitutional- and again, why do we have lower courts if you are just going to appeal all way to SCOTUS. Obama can accept the lower court ruling instead of spending my tax dollars on a case he believes unconstitutional. And how is it the executive branch responsibility to push a ruling they believe in to other levels of judicial review? The court said it's unconstitutional- we accept the ruling of the court.

  6. Posted February 25, 2011 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    Which is rules unconstitutional- and again, why do we have lower courts if you are just going to appeal all way to SCOTUS. Obama can accept the lower court ruling instead of spending my tax dollars on a case he believes unconstitutional.

    Trial court rulings do not set binding precedent on any court, even itself. Their findings on law in a particular case are limited to the litigants.

    Had the Obama administration refused to appeal Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. DoHSS , the ruling would only affect Massachusetts. DOMA would still be in force everywhere else, creating a split in interpretation of the Fifth Amendment as applied to DOMA.

    In fact, one might view this as a cynical move to keep DOMA in force in as many states as possible, by obviating a circuit level decision striking down the law, which would be binding law throughout the circuit.

    Finally, the administration's argument that under federal equal protection, sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect class, is breaking with a longstanding tradition of arguing otherwise, a tradition dating back to at least the Carter administration, a tradition that was backed up by every appellate court to take up that argument.

  7. Don
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Combatvet:

    What Obama thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. Determining the constitutionality of laws passed by the U. S. Congress is above Obama's pay grade.

    If you want a reason why we shouldn't just accept the rulings of lower courts, there's the Citizens United decision by SCOTUS.

  8. ConservativeNY
    Posted February 25, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    Those two cases included section 3 of DOMA. So I don't see how they can be discounted. Also, the appeals process isn't over yet. So declaring DOMA unconstitutional on an official level is premature at best.

  9. Don
    Posted February 26, 2011 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Let's get past the falsehood that Obama's action had anything to do with law or constituitonality. Obama has tried in every way to force the homosexual activist agenda on Americans against their will. Here is is most recent effort.

    From CBS News:

    "White House names first male, first openly gay social secretary"

    "Posted by Stephanie Condon"

    "The White House announced Friday that Jeremy Bernard, a senior staffer at the U.S. Embassy in Paris, has been named the new White House social secretary and special assistant to President Obama."

    "Bernard is the first male and the first openly gay person to be named to the post, the Washington Post reports."

    "Jeremy shares our vision for the White House as the People's House, one that celebrates our history and culture in dynamic and inclusive ways," Mr. Obama said in a statement. "We look forward to Jeremy continuing to showcase America's arts and culture to our nation and the world through the many events at the White House."

    "Bernard also previously served as a board member of A.N.G.L.E. (Access Now for Gay & Lesbian Equality) and the National Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund."

    "Joe Solmonese, president of the gay rights group The Human Rights Campaign, released a statement today calling Bernard's appointment "historic."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20036574-503544.html

    The Washington Post tells us a little more about our new White House social secretary:

    "Bernard and his then-partner Rufus Gifford were early supporters of Obama in California. And they raised a ton of money for him through their company, B&G Associates. Gifford went on to become finance director of the Democratic National Committee. Bernard was the White House liaison at the National Endowment for the Humanities before dashing off to his Paris post in November."

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/jeremy_bernard_a_historic_choi.html

    There's nothing quite like campaign money from homosexuals to clarify for Obama the constitutionality of DOMA.

  10. Don
    Posted February 27, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Obama had better go back and read the Presidential Handbook again. Presidents don't have the power to delcare unconstitutional a law passed by Congress. Obama must have been reading the Dictator's Handbook instead.

  11. Combatvet
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    He didn't declare it unconstitutional- the courts did- he just agrees with the judicial branch... Nice to see the powers working together.