Newt Gingrich Slams “The Rule of Obama Instead of the Rule of Law” on Defending DOMA, Mentions Impeachment (video)
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on February 26, 2011
I’m going to let it slide for now that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich unabashedly lifted from, without crediting, American Spectator the “what if Sarah Palin had done this as president?” comparison yesterday when he spoke out against Pres. Barack Obama’s stunning decision to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act — the latest power grab of Democrats and the Executive Branch:
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 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.
[...]
“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.
Maggie’s Notebook weighs in… Gingrich: Obama Didn’t Understand His Action Was Unconstitutional! House Must Pass Resolution – Zero Out Attorney General:
Newt Gingrich has a good interview with NewsMax in the video below. I was cheering up to the point where he tells the interviewer he does not think Obama set out to create a constitutional crisis. He believes the president did not understand the implications of suspending a law, and that his action was clearly unconstitutional. Everything else Newt said shines a light on a way forward, and how Republicans can handle this, but to say Obama didn’t know what he was doing is ridiculous. Of course, Obama the great and brilliant Constitutional attorney sitting in the Oval Office knows what he did is unconstitutional. The interesting part is detailing how the House can stop the dissolution of the Defense of Marriage Act. It may require the “zeroing out of the Office of the Attorney General. The last portion of the video is on healthcare, and it is worth listening to.
In this interview you’ll hear Newt Gingrich say that the House of Representatives, next week, should pass a resolution, instructing the president to enforce the law and obey his own presidential oath, which he swore to on the Bible. The resolution should say, if he fails to do so, they should zero out the office of Attorney General, and take such other steps as is necessary until Obama does his job. His job is to enforce the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Obama.
From The Lonely Conservative — Newt Raises Impeachment Possibility:
Gingrich suggested that House Republicans pass a resolution next week calling for President Obama and the Department of Justice to enforce the law. If he still doesn’t comply, they should defund the DOJ. He also said he believes the administration purposely created a constitutional crisis, and accused the president of a “dereliction of duty.”
If you ask me, his entire presidency has been a constitutional crisis. Just look at ObamaCare, forcing Americans to purchase health insurance. Or the way the administration has ignored federal judges on both the health care law and the drilling ban. One judge went so far as to say the administration is in contempt of court, yet we hear little from the media. As usual.
From Another Black Conservative:
Sounds like Newt has been listening to Rush Limbaugh lately. Rush made the same analogy of how the left would react to President Palin the other day. That aside, the idea of impeaching Obama over not defending DOMA in court is nothing more than a pure fantasy. With a split Congress and weak knee Republicans all over the place, anything short of Obama giving all our nation’s secrets to the Chinese will not lead to impeachment.
I also find talk like this very distracting for 2012. Just like Obama’s birth certificate and his religion, the impeachment issue only muddies the waters and fires up Obama’s base. Obama is very beatable in 2012 for the simple fact that the nation simply cannot afford his wild and irresponsible spending.
From American Spectator, Obama Abandons Marriage:
In an unexpected move (particularly in the midst of the Libyan crisis), President Obama signaled that he thinks the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, and he has instructed Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department (DOJ) to cease defending cases brought against DOMA. The wording of this surprise announcement suggests that the decision is another instance of this president’s politicizing the administration of justice: the White House ordering the Justice Department what it should do in order to appeal to the extreme elements of its political base. So much for Obama’s pivot to the middle, not that there was much doubt about that after his kowtowing to the unions in the Wisconsin imbroglio.
[...]
In the past, President Obama has not acted on his rhetorical support for the repeal of DOMA, a stance that was unpopular with his liberal base. Now, like the activist liberal judges, he is totally ignoring the damage to the standing of the courts by defying the will of the people regarding the nature of marriage (voters booted three Iowa State Supreme Court justices out of office in 2010 for tampering with the definition of marriage). In many respects, the president’s action is a full-employment act for self-identified homosexual lawyers, because the law is still on the books and the president just took the Justice Department attorneys off the case.
There is reason to conclude that the president acted now, before the 2012 election and while he has federal Supreme Court justices who will back his opinion on the issue of so-called same-sex “marriage,” because the unrest both nationally (Wisconsin and Indiana) and internationally (Egypt and Libya) will take the media headlines and he can “get away with” the decision no longer to defend DOMA in court because it will be “below the fold” in the nation’s newspapers.
From Point of Law Blog:
I’m not a fan of the Defense of Marriage Act, but I do have a large problem with the politicization of the role of the Department of Justice. Strip away the gay-rights issue and consider the question: what would Democrats say if, in 2013, President Sarah Palin announced that her Department of Justice would refuse to defend the constitutionality of Obamacare in court? There is no provision in the Constitution for a retroactive veto. Compare and contrast the Bush administration Department of Justice, which steadfastly (and successfully) defended McCain-Feingold and enforced FACEA.
A different on the matter presented at Hot Air, Gingrich on DOMA: What if President Palin refused to defend a law because she thought it was unconstitutional?:
Via Newsmax, a tangent on the news today that Boehner and the House GOP may intervene in the courts on DOMA’s behalf since Obama doesn’t want to. Ace is annoyed that Gingrich is pandering by wink-winking at impeachment at a moment when the public wants seriousness of purpose on fiscal issues. Point taken — this is obviously him trying to win the “Who’s The Most Anti-Obama Of ‘Em All?” contest in the primaries — but Newt’s argument about double standards is useful. This would indeed be an insufferable, five-alarm freakout in the media and in the lefty blogosphere had a Republican president refused to execute some law cherished by the liberal base. In fact, notwithstanding Obama’s DOMA precedent, it’ll still be a five-alarm freakout if President Palin or Romney or whoever decides that ObamaCare is unconstitutional and refuses to implement that. Why not get ahead of the curve by drawing the parallel now in case we have to fight that battle later?
[...]
Essentially, The One’s arguing that he agrees with one side of an unsettled legal debate; if the Roberts Court steps in by ruling in DOMA’s favor and Obama continues to decline to enforce the law, that’s a much more problematic executive precedent. Which, needless to say, the next Republican president can and will exploit to the hilt. Exit question: Is this going to be a grand backfire for liberals?
About the author
[...] Frugal Cafe linked – thanks! Tags: impeachment, Newt Gingrich, obama [...]