Nutcase Newtie: Obama Could Be Impeached Over Gay Marriage Reversal

[cali]

By Paul Bedard

Posted: February 25, 2011


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.

"I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job," said Gingrich. "His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent."


He didn't call for immediate impeachment hearings, but didn't rule them out if Obama balks at any congressional demands to enforce the law.



<snip>

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

[chollybocker]

1. When you have more ex-wives than kidneys,

you should probably stfu about the sanctity of marriage, Newt.

[jacquelope]

2. Oh, no, not at all.

I think Newt should be given a big fat platform for his insanity. You realize how many moderate voters he'll alienate?

This guy's trying to out-Palin Palin. Won't work, because he has too much ground to cover, but he'll sure give it an Ivy League-level try.

[dddem]

3. Very well said

:applause:

[Matt_in_STL]

4. I am by no means a Constitutional scholar

However, I am curious about the ramifications of a President failing to enforce the laws passed by Congress, whether we like them or not. While I do believe that DOMA should be repealed, is there some inherent legal issue with a President unilaterally deciding to ignore a law in our three-legged system of checks and balances? Although the Bush administration thumbed their collective noses at laws passed during their terms (see also: signing statements), I didn't think that was a path we also wanted to take. In addition, once a Republican ends up back in the Oval Office (which will undoubtedly happen), can't they go back to enforcing DOMA as law and put us right back to square one?

As I said, I don't have the knowledge of Constitutional law that many here have so perhaps someone has a much more refined view on the topic. With that said, I really hope this sticks and that we can be rid of DOMA once and for all. Also, I have to agree that serial marrier/cheater Newt should probably leave the marriage discussion alone.

[northernlights]

5. there is precedent

There was a discussion on one of the Friday evening talk shows last night. Rare, but has been done throughout our history, I think they said about a dozen times or so that a President has decided not to enforce a specific law.

[Matt_in_STL]

7. I need to research that

I am curious to see if it was done by a President with a friendly or hostile Congress. I have to imagine that would make some difference.

[northernlights]

8. don't remember the cases cited

although the did mention a few specific examples. I saw it on a PBS political show on Friday.

I don't think it will matter whether the Congress is friendly or hostile. Precedent is precedent.

[lolly]

11. Difference between enforcing it and defending it

The administration has announced that it wouldn't be defending the law as constitutional because they believe it isn't constitutional.

That is not the same as enforcing the law.

If the law isn't defended and the courts declare it unconstitutional, then a future president couldn't suddenly decide to start enforcing it.

Also, it isn't a criminal offense law, so I don't see how it could be "enforced." Are they arresting people for getting married.

[mysuzuki2]

6. I don't think this is a case of the president

ignoring the law. It is still being enforced. For example same sex spouses are still ineligible for Social Security benefits and the president cannot unilaterally change that. However, I think declining to offer a defense of DOMA when it is challenged in court is a quite different thing. I do not believe there is any constitutional requirement to do so. It is, I think, very different from Bush's signing statements where he basically said that his administration would not follow a constitutionally passed law.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. He also thinks . . .

. . . that a president (from the Democratic Party, at least) can be impeached over a blow job.

He has no cred.

[phleshdef]

10. This kind of BS is exactly why the admin has been defending DOMA, defended DADT, defended Bush...

...admin officials, etc. They know that if they don't, the Republicans can use it to start up an impeachment fiasco, regardless of how valid it may or may not be.

[Ikonoklast]

12. I'd love to see that happen.

It would destroy the Republicans in 2012.


Impeachment fatigue backlash as voters abandon extremism guarantees a Democratic landslide.