Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Are you sure you want to go there?

Newt Gingrich says President Obama is trampling the Constitution by refusing to fight for the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
Newt Gingrich criticizing Barack Obama's position on the Sanctity of Marriage is like Nick Nolte giving PR advice to Donny Osmond .

(H/T to RobertaX.)

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

I see Gingrich as being out counterpart to Spitzer from the left.

Smart guy, agree with him on some but not all issues, with morals of an allycat, not to be unfair to allycats.

Exodus said...

Because Newt holds sway with enough of the Fox News Conservatives, he's going to suck some of them into this same position.

Between that and his commercials with Nasty Pelosi touting golbal warming, my tinfoil starts to crinkle in regard to Newt's real role in things.

Also (and I can't believe I'm even remotely defending Zero) if you swear an oath to the Constitution, and you believe a law to be unconstitutional, then... what DO you do? I would think that you let SCOTUS have the final say, but it is a bit of an open question in some ways.

On the bright side, maybe a future President feels the same way about, oh, the NFA.

Anonymous said...

I think Newt plays himself much more follower of populism than conservitism.

He had his chance and blew it. Big promises, little or no results.

Next!

Gerry

og said...

Noot will always be an ijit. That said, you don't have to be a gunnie to support the second, you don't have to be moral to understand the value of morals, and the fedgov STILL doesn't have ANY business in the "Marriage" business. Pro, con, or otherwise.

JD said...

Looks like the Stupid party is working on a way to get Obama re-elected with this BS. . . .

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"I would think that you let SCOTUS have the final say, but it is a bit of an open question in some ways."

That would be my thought (and my preference), too. I'm not sure what the mechanism/process for getting the issue to SCOTUS would be, though.

Crotalus (Dont Tread on Me) said...

Like it or not, God does call homosexuality a sin, and now, this president, and hence, this nation, are thumbing their noses at God. Do you really think that GOd's not going to judge this nation? Of course, maybe he has already. After all, we elected the jug-eared buffoon.

Tam said...

Crotalus,

Everybody's god doesn't like something, and we can't go setting the laws of the land to make everybody's god happy, or we'd all be polygamous and couldn't eat bacon. Sorry, but that's just the way it is in places without an Official State Religion.

Tirno said...

Exodus said, "On the bright side, maybe a future President feels the same way about, oh, the NFA."

This new and inventive way use of executive power lays the groundwork for some new campaign promises.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to speak to you all here at the NRA convention. Should I be elected, I promise to weakly defend any suits brought against the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA or the Hughes Amendment thereof, the GFZA, the nebulous 'sporting' clauses, and pretty much anything covered by the F or the E in the BAFTE. I will provide the weakest representation of the government in court, bounded, of course, my the minimum effort required by the oath of office. So, all y'all, get your lawyers ready, and apply to pay your taxes on new machine guns, challenge the public interest in restricting suppressors, and try to import a new Saiga. Get denied. Get suited up. We'll see you in court... and I promise the government's briefs will be delivered by Twitter: OMG WTF I Kan Haz Law LOL Constitutional ROFL HAKZ Move to Dismiss"

Anonymous said...

Hey, old Newt is pretty familiar with marriage, he's tried it numerous times...

Dann in Ohio

Tam said...

I wonder how many people up in arms about this were partying down about Ashcroft's take on the 2nd Amendment?

Jenny said...

I have to confess... whatever Mr. Gingrich's personal failings (and I've got plenty of my own) - he's more than bright enough that when I find myself on the other side of a question from him, I do feel obligated to doublecheck my work.


still disagree.

benEzra said...

@Crotalus,

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mandate for Christians to outlaw everything they consider sinful or offensive to God, and nowhere does Jesus call on his followers to "go forth and punish sin" (on the contrary, he forbids it on numerous occasions).

Nor is there provision under the U.S. system of government for the alleged sinfulness of an act to determine its legality.

I do NOT want to live in a country where the purpose if the law is to prevent sin, whether such a state is dubbed "Sharia" or "Biblical".

I am a nondenominational Christian, but advocates of the "Authority Gospel" scare me as much as the Bradyites do. Criticize what you consider sinful all you want, sure; even try to convince people that God takes the same position you do, if you choose. But enforcing one's view of God's will at gunpoint or swordpoint, via the police power of the State, has a track record that is unspeakably evil.

Remember what C.S. Lewis said about people who oppress others for purposes the consider noble...

Anonymous said...

I read these comments but I don't know if they support the defense of marriage act that was signed by congress or they support Obama to say it's unconstitutional. All I read is attack on Newt Gingrich and not on the subject matter.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:53

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/01/newt-to-launch-exploratory-presidential-committee-this-week/

I think the Newts comments are based more on politics than his view on morality.

But I'm a bit jaded in my old age so I might be wrong.

Gerry

Don Meaker said...

I figure that control of the presidency means control of the prosecutors/solicitors. On the other hand, where the Govt doesn't act as a party, that should clear the field to other "amici" to move up to be full fledged parties

perlhaqr said...

Anon @4:53: The attack on Newt is the subject matter. The man is an opportunistic toad who was given the reins of power and demonstrated conclusively that he can't be trusted with them.

benEzra: Thank you for short circuiting me and thus preventing the torrent of bile that was otherwise going to issue forth in response to the comment you so neatly refuted.

Exodus: Also (and I can't believe I'm even remotely defending Zero) if you swear an oath to the Constitution, and you believe a law to be unconstitutional, then... what DO you do? I would think that you let SCOTUS have the final say, but it is a bit of an open question in some ways.

Well, I agree that you have the SCOTUS have the final say... but the balance of powers thing comes into play. Hrm. Trying to formulate this sentence, it occurs to me that I don't know what Legislative or Executive's check on the Judiciary is.

Legislature makes laws, and in the normal course of things, the Executive enforces them and the Judicial works according to them. The check is that the Executive can refuse to enforce a law, and the Judicial can declare the law void.

Executive is generally forbidden from enforcing laws that don't exist, so Legislature and simply repeal a law they don't want enforced, and possibly write new laws that countermand executive orders. (But I could be wrong about that.) The Judicial can declare the actions of the Executive unconstitutional.

It's been my notional plan for when (ha ha) I get elected president to call up the DEA and the DoJ and say "We're not going to be chasing drug dealers anymore."

And then having a very similar conversation with ATF right thereafter. :)

Tam said...

Anon 4:53,

"All I read is attack on Newt Gingrich..."

I can't speak for anybody else, but you've certainly grasped my point. :)

Tam said...

benEzra,

If I hadn't already awarded today's internet to jimbob86, I'd be mailing it to you. :)

Matt G said...

My nation screws up a lot of things. Congress passed the Patriot Act. Congress passed numerous laws permitting the mistreatment of black folk, Indians, women, Japanese Americans, and people who had gone to meetings to discuss communism. Refusing to treat a portion of society inequitably is simply the right thing to do. I'm not going to pat Obama on the back for doing it any more than I would pat him on the back for not beating his wife.

It is Constitutional to do, because of the Equal Protection clause. I'm rather surprised that the SCOTUS let that law (The Defense Of Marriage Act) stand. But then again, Plessy v. Ferguson wasn't overturned until Brown v. B.O.E. in 1954, and was still basically de facto until the mid 1960s. The SCOTUS sometimes lets bad law stand.

rickn8or said...

Tam-- Yes, I pretty much ceased having any use for Ashcroft when he derailed U.S. vs Emerson.

atlharp said...

Seriously, is Gingrich running for anything other than to see his name in the paper? Can anyone see anything significant that he would add beyond his standard drivel about the government protecting the sanctity of marriage? What's next a law against jazz and bad language in rap music?

Anonymous said...

The government has no business meddling in marriage. It has historically been the purveiw of religion. What a religion decides marriage is or is not is their bussiness, noone else's. The government should absolutely not be making laws concerning religion.

The problem is that the government is in the bussiness of recognizing marriage. This is something of a holdover from the days when The country was a good bit more religious. In recognizing marriage the government has to define it, but it can't do so in according to religious beliefs.

I think the best way to reconcile these two things is to stop having the government recognize marriages, and instead recognize civil unions.

Anonymous said...

Hope the packet is full for the ..
does obama and constitution qualify as an oxymoron?? last check is Kenya..

Kristopher said...

I'm not too impressed with Newt for going there.

As far as I can tell, the Republican establishment has re-discovered Gay Cooties in the hopes that the religious right will save them from the evil Tea Partiers.

Justthisguy said...

What benEzra and Kristopher said. Serving divorce papers to your cancer-ridden wife on her deathbed, Newt, is at the very least, just tacky as hell.

I write this as one who voted for Newt as his Congresscritter in '92, when I lived in Cherokee County.

Of course, I've always had weird Congresscritters; Pat Swindall, John Lewis, Ben "Cooter" Jones, Porter Goss, and now Cornelius McGillicuddy (Connie Mack).

Justthisguy said...

P.s. Newt sucks as an SF writer, even with help from his co-author, whatshisname.