A President is not above the law | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

By Jay Sekulow1307572990000

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed by Congress and signed into law by then President Clinton to give states the right to decide whether to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

Yesterday, President Obama declared that law unconstitutional, and instructed the Department [of Justice] not to defend the statute in court.  This is a disturbing policy reversal.  Just last month, the White House press secretary told reporters, [W]e cant declare the law unconstitutional . . . [W]e . . . have to represent the viewpoint of the defendant.

The idea that the President of the United States can order the Department of Justice not to defend a law, duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, should send shockwaves through anyone who is concerned with civil rights and civil liberties.  The President isnt a king.  He doesnt get to make decrees.  He is the chief executive with the responsibility to enforce existing laws even laws he doesnt like. 

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution specifically provides that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and this includes defending those laws in court.  The President and his Department of Justice have an obligation, an affirmative obligation, to defend every law unless the Supreme Court of the United States were to declare it unconstitutional.  Under the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has the right to review acts of Congress.  The President doesnt get to make that decision on his own.  It violates the principle of the rule of law.  Our nation cant have the President, acting as a monarch, decide to issue a decree.  That is not how a representative democracy works.

The Department of Justice is the party that has legal standing to defend a suit against a federal statute.  With activist groups already challenging DOMA, who is going to be the defending party here?  While Congress should be able to intervene to defend the statute, this would not be necessary if the President would fulfill his Constitutional obligation. Congress should not be required to do the Presidents job.  The Constitution sets up a system where Congress passes the laws and the President, the chief executive, executes and enforces those laws.

President Obama should reconsider the dangerous precedent this sets and uphold the rule of law.

The Contrast Between the ACLJ and the MRFF

By Wesley Smith1472224939648

While the American Center for Law and Justice continues to (1) fight for religious freedom, (2) fight the scourge of genocide throughout the world, (3) battle to limit unconstitutional Executive overreach by the IRS and the Obama Administration, it appears that Mikey Weinstein and the Military...

read more

Conscience Rights Attack in Illinois

By Francis J. Manion1471441058958

“Resolved: That the guarantee of the rights of conscience, as found in our Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable, . . . and that all attempts to abridge or interfere with these rights, directly or indirectly, have our decided disapprobation, and shall ever have our most effective opposition.”

read more

Defending Chaplains from the MRFF

By Skip Ash1470241654297

I have to confess that it’s getting more and more difficult for me to “speak the truth in love” to some people. Some folks are just never going to get it, no matter what we do. It’s like casting pearls before swine. It reminds me of the tongue-in-cheek saying, “Hey, don’t cloud the issue with...

read more

Military Religious Freedom Foundation?

By Wesley Smith1470168316107

Michael (Mikey) Weinstein is the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a legal advocacy group whose mission is “ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are...

read more