Newt Gingrich: Obama Could Be Impeached Over Gay Marriage Reversal

[^_^ 5,021]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who plans within two weeks to announce if he will run for president, said today that if President Obama doesn't change his mind and order his Justice Department to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans in Congress should strike back and even consider impeachment proceedings.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/02/25/newt-gingrich-obama-could-be-impeached-over-gay-marriage-reversal

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I was actually wondering about the legal precedent for a sitting President to refuse to accept a law that was passed, but then I remember GW Bush had done so on many occasions while in office. I'm wondering if Gingrich has forgotten?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Absolutely he could be.

He can't just up and change the way our government functions on a whim.

It's not about Gay Marriage reversal, it's about the job of the justice department to defend the laws passed by congress/signed by the president.

The precedent this would set is actually quite scary.

Imagine if all of a sudden Presidents start nitpicking what they like and don't like on what should and shouldn't be defended.

Regardless of popularity of a piece of legislation, it's the job of the President & the justice department to defend it until a new law is put into place or until the Supreme Court rules differently on the constitutionality of a law.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Imagine if all of a sudden Presidents start nitpicking what they like and don't like on what should and shouldn't be defended.

You mean like what GW Bush did?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You mean like what GW Bush did?

Please give examples of where the Justice Department stopped defending things on orders of the Oval Office during his Presidency... Not being sarcastic here. Just unaware of any that was reported heavily.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I just found this: (will keep looking for legal opinion on the matter)

Obama's decision leaves the law on the books, but requires new counsel for parties previously represented by Justice Department attorneys in two challenges to the law still pending in federal courts. Scores of media-hungry, homophobic attorneys are presently salivating at the opening, which may present them the opportunity to defend DOMA's constitutionality before the Supreme Court in due time. New counsel's role will be limited to defending Section 3, as the Justice Department indicates that the remainder of the law should be upheld.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-cassidy/obama-down-with-doma_b_827205.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Please give examples of where the Justice Department stopped defending things on orders of the Oval Office during his Presidency... Not being sarcastic here. Just unaware of any that was reported heavily.

You must filter too much of your news sources. Just one example:

October 2008

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration allowed Phoenix-based Neutron Energy to stake 20 new mining claims south of the Grand Canyon on August 7, in violation of an emergency Congressional resolution passed seven weeks earlier that declared off limits to mining activity approximately 1 million acres adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park.

http://www.ewg.org/report/bush-ignores-law-protecting-grand-canyon-uranium-mining-claims-soar

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You must filter too much of your news sources. Just one example:

October 2008

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration allowed Phoenix-based Neutron Energy to stake 20 new mining claims south of the Grand Canyon on August 7, in violation of an emergency Congressional resolution passed seven weeks earlier that declared off limits to mining activity approximately 1 million acres adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park.

http://www.ewg.org/report/bush-ignores-law-protecting-grand-canyon-uranium-mining-claims-soar

You do know the difference between a law and a Congressional resolution don't you?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You must filter too much of your news sources. Just one example:

http://www.ewg.org/report/bush-ignores-law-protecting-grand-canyon-uranium-mining-claims-soar

As John said. There's a difference in defending a law in the courts and granting 'temporary immunity' or whatever lameduck excuse it is to skirt something. Neither one is right really...

It's kind of like all the 'immunities' that are being given out for OBamacare......

[Stanley Hermosill 1]

I think that it was actually GW Bush that set the precedent here, now Obama is following suit.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think that it was actually GW Bush that set the precedent here, now Obama is following suit.

Please don't 'think' anything and post examples. Legitimate examples of purposefully not defending the laws of the land in court.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As John said. There's a difference in defending a law in the courts and granting 'temporary immunity' or whatever lameduck excuse it is to skirt something. Neither one is right really...

It's kind of like all the 'immunities' that are being given out for OBamacare......

See post #6. The point is, GW Bush did the same very thing and yes, I can find examples of laws on the books that he deliberately circumvented. Does anyone not remember his legal counsel making legal declarations about what then President Bush could or couldn't do? So it's a bit disingenuous for Gingrich thinking such legal maneuvering is an impeachable offense when I'm sure he is very well aware of how the Bush Administration ignored many laws on the books that it simply didn't agree with.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Another example:

Friday, September 13, 2002

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SALEM, Ore. -- Gov. John Kitzhaber said President Bush's proposal to sidestep environmental laws to speed up thinning in national forests violates the spirit of a bipartisan plan to reduce wildfires put together by Western governors.

.....

Kitzhaber noted that the Bush proposal would allow the secretaries to ignore the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act in the name of speeding up projects, and prevent the public from seeking administrative appeals or court orders stopping logging.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/86893_thin13.shtml

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Another example:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/86893_thin13.shtml

still different... also that's a 'proposal' not something that was ordered to be done...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

See post #6. The point is, GW Bush did the same very thing and yes, I can find examples of laws on the books that he deliberately circumvented. Does anyone not remember his legal counsel making legal declarations about what then President Bush could or couldn't do? So it's a bit disingenuous for Gingrich thinking such legal maneuvering is an impeachable offense when I'm sure he is very well aware of how the Bush Administration ignored many laws on the books that it simply didn't agree with.

Well impeachment also take balls from the congress as well. Just because the President acts out of line or even does thing outside the scope of what they are allowed to do, doesn't mean that congress has the fortitude to stop it.