Civil libertarians have been outraged by President Barack Obama’s adoption of extreme Bush policies on secrecy and executive privilege, including his effort to dismiss public interest lawsuits and his Administration’s refusal to investigate war crimes committed by the Bush Administration. Now, Obama has filed to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which blocks same-sex couples from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and enjoying other federal rights of marriage.
While Obama criticized the act and promised to seek a repeal of the law when he was complaining for gay and lesbian votes in the campaign, he is now arguing that it is entirely constitutional and should be allowed to stand. DOMA was passed with the support of Bill Clinton in 1996.
The Justice Department insists that it is only defending existing federal laws, though the Justice Department is not required to defend a statute that it believes is unconstitutional. Yet, if this were a separate but equal statute, the Administration would presumably not fight to preserve it. There are various ways for the Justice Department to back away from defending such a law if it believes that it is unconstitutional.
The Administration has been silent on seeking a legislative repeal of DOMA and backed away from initial promises to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military — leaving gays and lesbians frustrated on the two greatest issues affecting their community.
For the full story, click here.
Just some more of the same misinformation that has been refuted on another thread. Here is a reprint of the last posting:
This is just another incoherent posting by bvm, who has hijacked a thread on a Supreme Court nominee with repeated hate-filled, unsupported charges and allegations. That kind of stuff does not go unchallenged at the Turley site. In the meantime, interested readers can see that yet another independent source, Politifact.com, examined and verified the Certification: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Lindylou posted a news article quoting Dr Fukino, and the official statement can be read here: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
People should look at the statement printed at the bottom of the Certification: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]” These are the facts. The Certification is true copy, and it is valid legal evidence of birth. The charges by von Bruun and all of the other birthers that its was forged are false. On its face, it would be evidence of the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 in any court proceeding. It correctly describes what is in the official state records. The fact that the Home Lands office requires more evidence is based on the need to show 50% Hawaiian ancestry. It is no wonder that all the court challenges thus far have been dismissed, or are pending dismissal.
The hatred of the birthers is so deep seated that they have admitted that no proof of birth will ever satisfy them. Even if it were proven to their satisfaction that Obama was born in the United States, they have admitted that they would still challenge his right to serve.
Here is Rachel Maddow making a fool of herself in producing a fraudulent, computer-generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) from Hawaii as Obama’s birth certificate. This is NOT Obama’s birth certificate. No one has seen Obama’s birth certificate, it is sealed and vaulted in Hawaii or he has a COLB sealed and vaulted there. Clearly the COLB states on the bottom that “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” A COLB is NOT proof of birth. It will not even qualify for a drivers license in Hawaii.
Rachel, do your research.
Obama, where’s the birth certificate?
Bad on you Mr. President. I know it’s the moderates that will get you re-elected, but the wisdom of the crowds is often just their madness.
Thanks Buddha. You and some other regulars are a main reason I continue to access this blawg.
FFLEO,
You are truly a stand up guy.
And Ricky Ricardo would say, “Obama! You got some ‘splainin’ to do!”
Jill,
I am neither a civil libertarian nor a Democrat. However, if I fell within either or both of those groups, I would be extremely outraged with Mr. Obama. As a conservative Republican, I cannot understand why his most ardent supports are not incensed over the man’s lies and broken promises. I voted for the man because I saw the need—mostly—to do what he was espousing. Sure, I dreaded the thought of some of the democratic/socialistic changes for which he championed; however, he is forsaking the very people who secured the presidency for him, including Republicans like me who took a chance on him.
When Mr. Obama selected Republicans for his cabinet and other positions, I thought that he was making an emphatically clear statement that no Democrat was capable of fulfilling—or qualified for—those positions. What a fine statement of the Democratic Party officials who helped elect you and whose trust you have tarnished.
Obama has also carried President Abraham Lincoln’s emulation excessively far and without justification. How exceptionally presumptuous of Mr. Obama to denigrate Lincoln’s honorable legacy by professing to being anywhere near equal to Lincoln’s his fine character and abilities.
Mr. Obama, I have read extensively of Mr. Lincoln, and you are *no* Lincoln!
FFLEO,
I admire you for saying Obama should fulfill pledges that he made with which you disagree. I think Obama has no intention of making good changes in this nation and here’s part of my reasoning. Obama has surrounded himself with people who literally committed war and financial crimes. These are his top level advisors, on the war, on terrorism, on the economy etc. Now I could understand that a person might make one or two mistakes in their choices but if they were really mistakes and one wanted to do the right thing, one would fire these people and indict them. At a minimum, one would fire them–there’s no political downside to that action.
But Obama has placed criminals in one position of power in his adminstration after another. That’s not a mistake, that’s a pattern. Some people want to claim Obama is simply following the bad advice of the people he surrounded himself with. We don’t believe this regarding other people. We all listen to the advice of others, but the final decisions remain our own. Further, if we consistently surround ourselves with people who have committed crimes, we would generally call this a criminal enterprise, not just a hapless mistake. For example, it wasn’t a mistake that Dick Cheney went to the lawyers he went to for certification that torture is legal. He knew it was illegal and he hand picked toddies that would “make it so”. Cheney’s actions were not the result of a hapless man being given bad advice. The were the actions of someone who knew exactly what he was doing and wanted cover for illegal actions–it was a criminal enterprise.
Just so, I believe Obama is engaged in his own version of the criminal enterprise. He is no hapless victim of mendacious advisors. He knows what he wants and he’s going to the people who will be most likely to aid his desires.
Jill,
Thank you for the video link. I also read Greenwald’s comments earlier, with which I agree.
I am against some of the pledges Mr. Obama made, including parts of “gay” issue. However—and most importantly—he made those pledges and he should do all in his power to carry them out regardless of the people, including me, whom he might upset. He must help the many who voted for the ‘Change’ he pledged, repeatedly and ad nauseam.
Obviously, we need marked Change because every sector of our American way of life is suffering from the wrongs and excesses of the past and we cannot continue along the same flawed and corrupt legal, economic, and societal paths.
This is more evidence of Obama’s actual intent. As FFLEO says, one must make up their own mind. From Glenn Greenwald today. Please check out this video from Rachael Maddow and Ben Wizer on the suppression of information regarding torture and the secrecy that the Obama administration engages in: (video at link)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385×325070
(below from Glenn Greenwald)
“Tuesday June 16, 2009 05:17 EDT
Here is secrecy creep in action
On May 13, when Obama announced he would attempt to suppress prisoner abuse photos on the ground that their release would inflame anti-American sentiment, I wrote:
Think about what Obama’s rationale would justify. Obama’s claim . . . means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan (as has happened several times already), then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done — as the Bush administration did — because release of such evidence would “would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.” Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn’t it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?”
The following is just one more example of Mr. Obama’s lies and broken pledges. The FOIA is extremely important to us all and I frequently use this valuable tool.
This is *not* another case of, well he has only been in office for a few months so we must give him time to do the right things. The evidence is mounting that Mr. Obama is not who he claimed to be. I guess it is up to each citizen to determine if you want to call him a liar or just a pledge breaker or…
_________________________
{Quote: Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush’s position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs
Despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com’s request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. End Quote}
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/
______________________
Lolo:
I disagree – the text of the controlling Constitutional clause reads:
Emphasis mine.
The DOMA does so, and SCOTUS’s long-standing standpoint of the public policy exception reinforces it. Absent any judgement to the contrary, it’s going to stand, unfortunately; I don’t particularly like the idea, either, but if wishes were wings, pigs would fly.
As to the portion of the DOMA which states that same-sex marriages cannot be recognised, you’ll have to talk to Congress about that one; while Loving, for example, recognises a fundamental right to marry, that same right is also broadly recognised as being at the State level only. While I think that this portion is probably arguable in terms of Equal Protection, I don’t think that it’s currently as clearly viable as we might wish.
Regarding your claim of betrayal, there’s a good analysis of the issue here; also, I think that I commented earlier that DADT is based on a legislative provision, which is not something the President can undo on his own. He might decline to enforce the law, but that would make him as bad as Bush, in that case, wouldn’t it?
Mike,
It isn’t obvious that DOMA is constitutional. The statute consists of more than protecting states from having to recognize marriages recognized elsewhere. It also states that the federal government cannot treat same-sex relationships as marriage for any purpose. This goes behind full-faith-and-credit issues and could very well be unconstitutional.
By backing down on DADT and DOMA, Obama has betrayed one of his most loyal constituencies.
This is what happens when the president when elected by the left governs to the right.
There were clues all along… that odd choice of invocation at the inauguration by rick warren….his refusal to honor the “dont ask – don’t tell” policy …. re-thinking the closing of gitmo, …refusal to prosecute authors of torture policy …. nomination of a not-so-liberal judge to the bench …. dragging his feet with ending the war in iraq….
my list is growing and approval rating for the president falling
Swartzmore Mom,
That is what I am afraid of, he is working on the next 4 and keeping his score low. Bush got it by starting the war and keeping us in constant hysteria and fear to control while chipping away at our rights.
So Tried to call E and no answer. Oh well.
See Jose Padillia on this thing today.
Nader gave us George Bush. Al Gore was to the left of Obama and people on the left trashed him constantly. I have always thought Obama was too political. After all he was elected in my home state, Illinois.It is not known for idealistic politicians. I voted for Obama and even traveled out of state to work for him.A poll driven democrat may be the best we can do now.
Who is the Obama you elected? Narcissistic, comes to mind. It is not the will of the people, but the will of the ego. How will this make me look? Do I have toilet paper on my shoe all show.
With McCain, you’d get the same things with an added spice the Alaskan Trash.
As I have stated before, Nader may be old but a lot of his ideals are sound and he usually does not rely on popularity to do what is right.
I agree with mespo. It’s always so sad when a politician seemingly moves from idealism to populism. Obama shouldn’t need to lower his standards like that. Especially not since he’s using strange substances to control the minds of the American people (at least according to this weird quiz I just took). 🙂 See for yourself: http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/test-whos-really-in-control-of-your-mind
The DOMA is entirely constitutional under FF&C; and isn’t Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a matter of legislation? It’s up to Congress to repeal it, obviously.
As it stands, arguing against DOMA on constitutional grounds is not set to be a winnner, especially given the current make up of SCOTUS.
I am coming to believe that our President has subscribed to the “policy making by poll” mentality. He needs to do much better.