In answer to a question following his talk at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Cantor said he was "taken aback" by Obama's ordering the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama based his decision on legal opinions that a crucial part of the law is unconstitutional. As reported in Huffington Post:
The Virginia Republican said Thursday that he'd never been around when a president decided not to defend a law on the books.So if "being around" means "being alive," then he can be only 15. Otherwise, he is ignorant of some recent presidential history of precedents -- easily available on the New York Law School web site from last October: http://www.lasisblog.com.
In 1996, a federal court struck down as unconstitutional part of a law that barred HIV positive men and women from serving in the armed forces. Bill Clinton then refused to allow the decision to be appealed by the Justice Department.
And even a recent Republican president, George H. W. Bush, in 1992 refused to defend the Cable Television Act after Congress overrode his veto.
Here's the dilemma in damage control for Cantor. Is it better to admit that the House Majority Leader is this ignorant of recent history that directly affects Congress and its laws? Or to confess to being a teenager?
Let's see how they spin this one.
Ralph
When the Obama administration did defend DADT in courts, prior to its repeal by Congress in December 2010, some spokespersons explained that they were obligated to defend all laws, even ones that it didn't like.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the distinction seems to be that legal opinions have determined that DOMA is unconstitutional, but that was not the case with DADT. Obama thought it was a law that should be repealed, but that's not the same as saying it is unconstitutional.
Opponents are saying this is just political or that it's to take the attention off budget cuts.
ReplyDeleteThe DoJ explanation makes sense to me. Two cases on appeal are pending, and the DoJ in preparing to defending them simply ran into too many obstacles that they could not make rational and legal arguments for.
My reading is that this was not done for either political advantage or for distraction. True, it makes a huge difference to the GLBT community, just as repeal of DADT did; but it will also incite even more rabid opposition from the right.