House GOP Raises DOMA Defense Budget

[Rolyo85]

Here's the link:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/house_g...html?pos=oplyh

House Republicans have quietly raised the value of a contract with a private law firm that is handling the chamber’s Supreme Court defense of a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

House Administration Chairman Dan Lungren, R-Calif., signed off in September on a $500,000 increase in the maximum value of the contract with the firm, Washington-based Bancroft. Republicans have raised the cap of the contract twice: first on Sept. 29, 2011, from its original maximum of $500,000 to $1.5 million, and again on Sept. 28 to its new maximum of $2 million.

In secret. Sneaking like thieves in the dark...

Here's what Nanci Pelosi says on her website:

Here they go again. It’s bad enough that Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act – and losing in every case. Now, they have reached a new low – signing a secret contract to spend more public money on their legal boondoggle without informing Democrats. Their actions are simply unconscionable; their decisions are utterly irresponsible.

[JayHawk]

It is part and parcel for the course. I do not agree with the republicans spending the money but I do remember republicans bitching about democratic unilateral actions when they held the reigns.

[jackoroe]

While I don't agree with the law, I disagree more with Obama simply deciding unilaterally that it's unconstitutional and refusing to defend it. It may very well be, but the role of the president is to execute the laws passed by congress, not to pick and choose what laws he decides are Constitutional. That's why we have courts. I'm very concerned about future presidents simply deciding laws they don't like to be unconstitutional.

[JayHawk]

Surely it is a precedent and no President or legal system in the US has EVER refused to defend or simply not enforced the law... right?

[Rolyo85]

I am sorry, jackoroe, but after deleting the part about the on-topic thing, can you explain HOW Obama defending or not defending DOMA is ON the topic of the GOP secretly using tax payers' money to do so while there are supposedly so much more important things to be done?

Let's deflect the issue and talk about Obama again? Is that ALWAYS the game plan when the GOP does harm to the LGBT community and you guys have nothing to say in their defense?

[jackoroe]

I am sorry, jackoroe, but after deleting the part about the on-topic thing, can you explain HOW Obama defending or not defending DOMA is ON the topic of the GOP secretly using tax payers' money to do so while there are supposedly so much more important things to be done?

Let's deflect the issue and talk about Obama again? Is that ALWAYS the game plan when the GOP does harm to the LGBT community and you guys have nothing to say in their defense?

First of all, your dictated terms regarding what others may post in an "on topic" thread were not accurate, so they were edited out. The proximate cause of the House having to ensure that laws it passed and that were signed into law get defended was Obama's declaration of the law to be unconstitutional, so it is relevant to the discussion.

[opinterph]

While I don't agree with the law, I disagree more with Obama simply deciding unilaterally that it's unconstitutional and refusing to defend it. It may very well be, but the role of the president is to execute the laws passed by congress, not to pick and choose what laws he decides are Constitutional. That's why we have courts. I'm very concerned about future presidents simply deciding laws they don't like to be unconstitutional.

Surely it is a precedent and no President or legal system in the US has EVER refused to defend or simply not enforced the law... right?

Presidential Authority To Decline To Execute Unconstitutional Statutes (US Department of Justice, 1994)

Debunking Conservative Talking Points On DOMA (Equality Matters)

When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute? The Obama Administration and DOMA (Northwestern University Law Review)

U.S. Sends Conflicting Signals On Gay Marriage Law (National Public Radio)

[Rolyo85]

All those pesky facts!, Opinterph, you scoundrel!


Although I would REALLY love to get back on the topic of the GOP spending tax payer money to defend the law, and boosting the budget again and again. Last time - in secret. Why the hiding?

[opinterph]

Although I would REALLY love to get back on the topic of the GOP spending tax payer money to defend the law, and boosting the budget again and again.

Is there anything illegal associated with the House of Representatives electing to defend a bill, if the Department of Justice fails to do so?

[Benvolio]

The GOP is spending money to defend the law passed by Congess and signed by the Congress. It is the law after all. We American citzens believe in the rule of law.

[opinterph]

The GOP is spending money to defend the law passed by Congess and signed by the Congress.

It is my understanding that bills are signed into law by the president.

[jackoroe]

Presidential Authority To Decline To Execute Unconstitutional Statutes (US Department of Justice, 1994)

Debunking Conservative Talking Points On DOMA (Equality Matters)

When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute? The Obama Administration and DOMA (Northwestern University Law Review)

U.S. Sends Conflicting Signals On Gay Marriage Law (National Public Radio)

Yeah looks good on paper, just not in practice. The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional on it's face because it allows law enforcement to write their own warrants inviolate of the 4th Amendment. If there's any law that you could easily argue needs to not be enforced, the Patriot Act is it.

His alleged concerns as to the Constitutionality of DOMA ring quite hollow given his failure to act on the softball that is the Patriot Act.

[palbert]

It is my understanding that bills are signed into law by the president.

Who blithely appends "Signing Statements" saying just how he will or will not enforce the Act.

[Benvolio]

My typo. Of course you are correct. The iPadi is a constant struggle.

[opinterph]

His alleged concerns as to the Constitutionality of DOMA ring quite hollow given his failure to act on the softball that is the Patriot Act.

The President and his attorney general may assuredly make mistakes; however, a major element of my [hasty] response addresses the concern you expressed about future presidents. The practice of failing to defend a law is not unique to the current president, who, like those who held that office before him, is sworn by oath to defend and protect the most important component of law (to the best of his ability).

[JayHawk]

Yeah looks good on paper, just not in practice. The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional on it's face because it allows law enforcement to write their own warrants inviolate of the 4th Amendment. If there's any law that you could easily argue needs to not be enforced, the Patriot Act is it.

His alleged concerns as to the Constitutionality of DOMA ring quite hollow given his failure to act on the softball that is the Patriot Act.

Ah so the basis of your argument is what YOU consider the proper laws to ignore. I suppose once you gain Presidential office you may act on that based on precedent.

[jackoroe]

Ah so the basis of your argument is what YOU consider the proper laws to ignore. I suppose once you gain Presidential office you may act on that based on precedent.

It's not my consideration, but the Constitution's. The president is bound by his oath of office that requires him to uphold the Constitution. Since the 4th amendment clearly requires judicial review prior to the issuance of a search warrant and the Patriot Act ignores that requirement, what then forms the basis of his failure to similarly order non enforcemt of the Patriot Act?

Where is the comparable glaring violation of the Constitution on it's face in DOMA? Or is the violation more subtle and subject to interpretation in which case the executive should assume the law to be Constitutional and defer to the will of a majority of Congress, as outlined in the DOJ 1994 memo?

[JockBoy87]

While I don't agree with the law, I disagree more with Obama simply deciding unilaterally that it's unconstitutional and refusing to defend it. It may very well be, but the role of the president is to execute the laws passed by congress, not to pick and choose what laws he decides are Constitutional. That's why we have courts. I'm very concerned about future presidents simply deciding laws they don't like to be unconstitutional.

You are confusing execution and defense of the law.

They are not the same.

One is required in the constitution. The other is not.

[Rolyo85]

Is there anything illegal associated with the House of Representatives electing to defend a bill, if the Department of Justice fails to do so?

Is there anything in my OP to suggest I think it's illegal? I think it's degrading, pathetic and ugly, but illegal? No sir.

- - - Updated - - -

The GOP is spending money to defend the law passed by Congess and signed by the Congress. It is the law after all. We American citzens believe in the rule of law.

In my personal experience, people who say things like that are not gay.

[Rolyo85]

Yeah looks good on paper, just not in practice. The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional on it's face because it allows law enforcement to write their own warrants inviolate of the 4th Amendment. If there's any law that you could easily argue needs to not be enforced, the Patriot Act is it.

His alleged concerns as to the Constitutionality of DOMA ring quite hollow given his failure to act on the softball that is the Patriot Act.

Oh, so because he isn't abandoning all bad laws, we'll find reasons to hate him for abandoning SOME of them?

[DonQuixote]

Speaking to the core of the OP's concerns, first -
It appears the Republicans are unilaterally authorizing the additional expenditure without even advising or trying to seek consent from the other side of the aisle. That is VASTLY different than what the Republicans are chastising the Democrats for during the first two years of President Obama's tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The BIG difference - the Democrats brought the bills they passed to the floor and gave the Republicans the opportunity to agree or disagree; it was not done clandestinely.

That, I would say, crosses a significant line.

Jackaroe, I believe Opinterph has presented more than adequate historical perspective regarding DOMA. Given that Federal Courts are repeatedly striking the provisions down in different parts of the country adds the imprimature of Judicial review that you bemoan the Executive for not getting first. Additionally, given the mounting legal decisions against their efforts, the Republicans increasingly chase a losing battle, throwing our good money after bad. Maybe those LARGE corporate sponsors who believe $1 = 1 vote would be willing to pony up the money instead of the government. The Koch Brothers, the CEO of the (Sands?) in Las Vegas, and Karl Rove all seemed to have money to burn a few months ago. Let's stop adding government wasteful spending - something they abhor.

As to The Patriot Act - it is a nasty little piece of law - but President Obama is not the first to use its provisions, and the Democrats are not the first party to embrace it or similar measures.

Have you seen the current Box Office Offerings - notably Daniel Day Lewis in "Lincoln"?

President Lincoln took extraordinary powers upon himself to try and save the United States - without Congressional Approval.

Marshall Law, an alternate option, is perhaps even more severe than the Patriot Act - but we really don't want to go there.
I detest what some of the provisions could mean.
I detest the wanton death and destruction from terrorists more.

[Benvolio]

This is not a new act or bill. It is an INCREASE in an expenditure from the House administration fund to continue on-going litigation, which has been debated in the past. This is just Nasty Pelosi making political propaganda from a routine expenditure.

[JockBoy87]

This is not a new act or bill. It is an INCREASE in an expenditure from the House administration fund to continue on-going litigation, which has been debated in the past. This is just Nasty Pelosi making political propaganda from a routine expenditure.

Funding the defense of anti-gay laws, yeah why should we care about that at all?

[gewhite3]

It's not my consideration, but the Constitution's. The president is bound by his oath of office that requires him to uphold the Constitution. Since the 4th amendment clearly requires judicial review prior to the issuance of a search warrant and the Patriot Act ignores that requirement, what then forms the basis of his failure to similarly order non enforcemt of the Patriot Act?

Where is the comparable glaring violation of the Constitution on it's face in DOMA? Or is the violation more subtle and subject to interpretation in which case the executive should assume the law to be Constitutional and defer to the will of a majority of Congress, as outlined in the DOJ 1994 memo?

You really need to learn the difference between enforcement and defense of laws.

[Rolyo85]

This is not a new act or bill. It is an INCREASE in an expenditure from the House administration fund to continue on-going litigation, which has been debated in the past. This is just Nasty Pelosi making political propaganda from a routine expenditure.

Are you gay?

[Lestatnj]

^^^^^^I honestly think "he's" a member of the "million moms" or a self hating homo.

[Kulindahr]

While I don't agree with the law, I disagree more with Obama simply deciding unilaterally that it's unconstitutional and refusing to defend it. It may very well be, but the role of the president is to execute the laws passed by congress, not to pick and choose what laws he decides are Constitutional. That's why we have courts. I'm very concerned about future presidents simply deciding laws they don't like to be unconstitutional.

He could at least have sent a team of lawyers to say "Present".

[Kulindahr]

Presidential Authority To Decline To Execute Unconstitutional Statutes (US Department of Justice, 1994)

Debunking Conservative Talking Points On DOMA (Equality Matters)

When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute? The Obama Administration and DOMA (Northwestern University Law Review)

U.S. Sends Conflicting Signals On Gay Marriage Law (National Public Radio)

That top one is superb.

The second one is almost humorous with the juxtaposition of right-wing rhetoric and legal reality.

[bike10]

More hog wash and BS from the moral GOP.

[Kulindahr]

All those pesky facts!, Opinterph, you scoundrel!


Although I would REALLY love to get back on the topic of the GOP spending tax payer money to defend the law, and boosting the budget again and again. Last time - in secret. Why the hiding?

That's the issue. They can spend the money, but it's not supposed to be in secret.

Is there anything illegal associated with the House of Representatives electing to defend a bill, if the Department of Justice fails to do so?

In itself, no. But the matter is supposed to go through a House committee which also has Democrats on it. It's possible that by doing this without going through that committee they committed a technical violation.

- - - Updated - - -

The GOP is spending money to defend the law passed by Congess and signed by the Congress. It is the law after all. We American citzens believe in the rule of law.

There's no such thing as the "rule of law", there's only rule by the people with guns who apply the law.

[Kulindahr]

Yeah looks good on paper, just not in practice. The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional on it's face because it allows law enforcement to write their own warrants inviolate of the 4th Amendment. If there's any law that you could easily argue needs to not be enforced, the Patriot Act is it.

His alleged concerns as to the Constitutionality of DOMA ring quite hollow given his failure to act on the softball that is the Patriot Act.

Maybe he values his life.

[Kulindahr]

It's not my consideration, but the Constitution's. The president is bound by his oath of office that requires him to uphold the Constitution. Since the 4th amendment clearly requires judicial review prior to the issuance of a search warrant and the Patriot Act ignores that requirement, what then forms the basis of his failure to similarly order non enforcemt of the Patriot Act?

Where is the comparable glaring violation of the Constitution on it's face in DOMA? Or is the violation more subtle and subject to interpretation in which case the executive should assume the law to be Constitutional and defer to the will of a majority of Congress, as outlined in the DOJ 1994 memo?

The difference is that he hasn't told the government to not enforce DOMA or abide by it, he's just not defending it.

[rareboy]

^^^^^^I honestly think "he's" a member of the "million moms" or a self hating homo.

I think you mean the one dozen moms.

[palbert]

While I think the fees are outrageous and gouging, it is probably better to have the legal question fully litigated so that no question remains. Saying that, I sure hope DOMA is overturned.

[JockBoy87]

While I think the fees are outrageous and gouging, it is probably better to have the legal question fully litigated so that no question remains. Saying that, I sure hope DOMA is overturned.

I've never met an advocate aiming for side victories.

[Ninja108]

Once again,proving the Republician party is still hostile to gays.

[rareboy]

^ For a lot of these clowns heading into 2014...this is still one of the last things they have in their arsenal to convince the 'values' voters that they are somehow different (snorts derisively) than their Democratic rivals.

Once homo marriage isn't a wedge issue, they'll have nothing but race, religion and immigrants to turn to.

[JockBoy87]

There's no such thing as the "rule of law", there's only rule by the people with guns who apply the law.

Double-take..



I think what you mean is authority, which applies the law, is derived from the people?

[Laufey]

Is it considered a part of small government to finance legal battles on moral issues?

[Rolyo85]

Of course. All of religious morality partisanship is all about small government!

[xbuzzerx]

Is it considered a part of small government to finance legal battles on moral issues?

That's the core of the contradiction with modern conservativism in America. It happily votes for people who use the words "small government" but embraces none of the substance or meaning of it. This is why you have this big core of people who vote Republican but vehemently deny being Republican while obviously supporting them, I think. They have just enough awareness of the hypocrisy of what they're voting for to want to distance themselves from it, but not enough to admit they're wrong and get over the myths they want to believe the right represents.

Stephanie Miller, a progressive talk show host, is the daughter of the Miller who ran as Barry Goldwater's running mate. She mentioned many times on her show about how the concept of the government getting involved in defining marriage against groups of people on religious moral grounds would have been such anathema to conservatives of that era, including her dad. But due to the unholy alliance of the religious right and "conservativism", that is out the window in modern conservative politics.

[Just_Believe18]

It's not my consideration, but the Constitution's. The president is bound by his oath of office that requires him to uphold the Constitution. Since the 4th amendment clearly requires judicial review prior to the issuance of a search warrant and the Patriot Act ignores that requirement, what then forms the basis of his failure to similarly order non enforcemt of the Patriot Act?

Where is the comparable glaring violation of the Constitution on it's face in DOMA? Or is the violation more subtle and subject to interpretation in which case the executive should assume the law to be Constitutional and defer to the will of a majority of Congress, as outlined in the DOJ 1994 memo?

You're right about the Patriot Act, jackoroe. It is unconstitutional and is one of the worst violations of Constitutional law in American history. However, unlike DOMA, the Patriot Act is a monster of infrastructure. It is a living, breathing law that is working 24/7. One does not simply stop enforcing it from the executive level. Whereas, DOMA is merely the withholding of federal benefits. It is a law that legally does nothing. It's easy for the president to abandon it because there's nothing he has to do to stop it, other than let it die on its own to legal court challenges.

The difference is that the Republican party is intentionally and deliberately pouring our tax dollars into a unconstitutional law to ensure its protection. That is the reprehensible topic here that invokes anger and mistrust between the House and gay American citizens. Focus on that as the topic, not a red-herring of what Obama is or isn't doing about the Patriot Act. This is about DOMA, and how the president wants to see the end of it, while House Republicans are wanting to save it. We know who is on our side here.