The President and DOJ. Turning a blind eye to the law.
Over the last few weeks some things have happened that make me wonder exactly what Eric Holder and President Barack Obama believe. I will start with the Health care reform. It is well-known that 2 judges have ruled this act unconstitutional. The President and the DOJ like to cite that many more were thrown out. But why were they thrown out. Many were thrown out for lack of "Standing". In other words the court (Judges for the most part) ruled that the people who filed the complaint had no right to sue the government as they were not effected by the law. This might be the most ludicrous decision a judge could make (and partisan) as this law at its core effects everyone who is a United States citizen and possibly some who are not.
A few of the cases listed as upholding the law on the DOJ's web site were specifically about the Medicare or Medicaid provisions where unconstitutional. Even Judge Vinson in Florida ruled against the states on this matter. In his very detailed ruling he states that Medicaid being a voluntary program any burden placed by the federal government upon the states give them the choice to "opt out". Therefore all any case dismissed on this grounds is a wash in my eyes. Here is the statement of the DOJ on the Washington DC District court ruling.
“We welcome this ruling, which marks the third time a court has reviewed the Affordable Care Act on the merits and upheld it as constitutional. This court found – as two others have previously — that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable measure for Congress to take in reforming our health care system. At the same time, trial courts in additional cases have dismissed numerous challenges to this law on jurisdictional and other grounds. The Department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation.”
Remember now 2 courts have ruled this law unconstitutional. Holder and his team are proud to defend this law. Why point this out? Well it seems this President and Holder are the final arbiters of what laws should be defended. Never mind any oaths they took. Here is the beginning of a letter sent by Eric Holder, the supposed defender of the Constitution and laws of the land, to John Boehner Speaker of the House. This in reference to the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Honorable John A. Boehner
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Defense of Marriage Act
Dear Mr. Speaker:
After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, i as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.
While the Department has previously defended DOMA against legal challenges involving legally married same-sex couples, recent lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 have caused the President and the Department to conduct a new examination of the defense of this provision. In particular, in November 2010, plaintiffs filed two new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny. Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.); Pedersen v. OPM, No. 3:10-cv-1750 (D. Conn.). Previously, the Administration has defended Section 3 in jurisdictions where circuit courts have already held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to rational basis review, and it has advanced arguments to defend DOMA Section 3 under the binding standard that has applied in those cases.ii
These new lawsuits, by contrast, will require the Department to take an affirmative position on the level of scrutiny that should be applied to DOMA Section 3 in a circuit without binding precedent on the issue. As described more fully below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.
So it is obvious in the general tact taken on both cases that both Holder and the President feel they are the arbiters of what is or is not constitutional. Now part of the problem is the general thinking of progressive lawmakers and lawyers and even judges. They do not consider the constitutional nature of a bill. They used to let the courts figure it out. Now under this President the courts are taking a back seat to the feelings of two men. Eric Holder and Barack Obama. The courts be damned. Folks the general elections of 2012 are really only months away. Might I suggest that "We the People" make this narcissist of a President a one term President and move back to a Constitutional Republic before it is too late. Other reforms of our system are needed. But we should start at the top. I am going to include this sound bite from Judge Napolitano's show. This should scare us all. This man took an oath. He is ignoring it in his own self-interest. The man in the clip is the number 3 Democrat in leadership of Congress, James Clyburn. Prepare to be stunned at the insolence
Vote Constitutional! Oh and visit the DOJ web site read what Holder is doing. Know thine enemy!