Should Obama Be Impeached Over DOMA?

Is not having the Justice Department continue to fight for the “Defense of Marriage Act” an impeachable offense?  Conservative icon Newt Gingrich seems to think so, although he’s now backtracking once his comments hit the main stream media.  Gingrich, considered by some to be a 2012 Presidential contender, compared President Obama’s refusal to continue to defend the act akin to a Republican president unilaterally decided to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Via The Hill:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) stressed Friday that he does not believe President Obama should be impeached in reaction to an interview he gave where impeachment of the president was discussed.

Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, pushed back hard against the characterization of his interview with the conservative Newsmax magazine, during which he was asked if President Obama should be impeached over his decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

“Congress has every responsibility to demand President Obama live up to his constitutional obligations, but impeachment is clearly not an appropriate action,” Gingrich said in a statement, released after news outlets had interpreted Gingrich’s statements to Newsmax as suggesting that Obama could be impeachable for not executing the law regarding DOMA.

In the interview, Gingrich said that if former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) had been elected president and taken a similar action, she would be hearing calls for impeachment.

“Imagine that she had announced that Roe v. Wade in her judgment was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed,” he said. “The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

Asked if Obama’s decision is impeachable, Gingrich said, “I think that’s something you get into much later, but it is clearly a dereliction of duty and is a violation of his constitutional oath.”

Of course, Roe V. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, and hence proven constitutional, where as DOMA never has been.  And Roe V. Wade regards giving all women access to abortion regardless of income level, creating equality among the gender regardless of class, where as DOMA actually creates discrimination by only allowing certain people to get married.

Gingrich himself has been divorced and married three times, so as an expert on the sanctity of marriage, his credentials are somewhat lacking.


Photo courtesy of wikimedia commons


Annmari Lundin
Annmari Lundin5 years ago

Lying to the people on live television didn't get Clinton impeached, but as suggested by Christopher M. he should be impeached for DOMA. And while you're at it, through in DADT too. So many people have been hurt by these two four letter abbreviations and noone has had to answer for it.
The repukes wasting taxpayers money to defend discrimination should definately be held responsible.

Christopher M.
Christopher M.5 years ago

Impeach Clinton, he signed it

Margaret Paddock
M A Paddock5 years ago

Impeachment is in the constitution as the founders understood that man is not perfect and some downright evil.
Clinton's impeachment hearing was a sham as they should have tried him on the egregious conduct regarding the secret information given the Chinese by him and the Rose papers that disappeared under his watch and showed up on Hilliary's desk when it was against the law for her to see/handle them. There was much more illegal activity under Clinton's watch.
As for Obama and DOMA the law does not give him the right to choose which law will be followed anymore than us. If it is on the books he is to follow it. Right now he is bypassing many procedures by using the U.N. to sign treaties that will put Americans under the control of the U.N. Agenda 21 is a very dangerous treaty that will push people off their property and into densely populated inner cities for more control over them. They will also loose many building rights on their own property. The excuse being it would interfere with a view or designated wildlife areas which the government will impose on every coastline and elsewhere.

We as citizens need to be more concerned with important issues like this. Marriage is an issue that can be solved later. The right to live where one pleases is far more important at this time.

Mitchell D.
Mitchell D5 years ago

P.S.: Good B., it will take issue with your point: impeachment is there for a good reason, as even the President has to be answerable to the people for any malfeasance of a serious enough nature. It is in fact a patriotic duty to consider, or seek impeachment, under certain circumstances, rather than blindly follow a leader simply because he/she is a leader. However that does not mean that the process of seeking impeachment is to be entered frivolously, or for nothing but political gain, as in the case of Bill Clinton's impeachment.
By the way, one of DOMA's loudest supporters, the Newt, was one of the nastiest supporters of Clinton's impeachment, until he was found to be, let us say, compromised himself.

Jay D., kudos to you. Culturally, they are way out of step, financially, sadly, they are right there in bed with the Plutocratic wealthy, and on some major level do not give a darn about the culture.

Mitchell D.
Mitchell D5 years ago

Can you get the spelling in your poll correct?
Newt, the conservative "icon," is in the wrong century, he belongs back in the 12th with other religious fundamentalists. Though back then he could not print and publish the volume of books
that help keep him in the money, which he gives, reportedly, to conservative causes.
There is, I am sure, though I am not a constitutional lawyer (either), nothing impeachable about Obama's choosing to let DOMA go on its way to join the multitude of other senseless, out of date laws that hve been promulgated at one time or another.
You want to impeach somebody, revisit G.W. Bush and his sidekick (mentor?) Dick Cheney. It is still legally possible, I understand, and it would have a good budget balancing result, as they would then have to forfeit their federal pensions. Yes, we are STILL paying these constitution busting clowns!

Jay Digiandomenico

The GOP is doomed because they represent an old and shrinking segment of the population

Karrie C.
Gypsy Sage6 years ago

I am a strong Biblical Christian that strongly teaches separation church and state. This law is unconditional and Obama should not be impeached for removing it. Why can't we have a law to protect all marriges that are private in the bedrooms ?

Star Mousie
Good Bye6 years ago

The poll about impeachment is spurious. I answered it, but I am offended by the very question. In the America in which I was raised, one supported the President, not looked for ways to attack him. The question is unpatriotic.

Star Mousie
Good Bye6 years ago

The Defense of Marriage [sic] Act is an ethically reprehensible law, which attempts to create in the USA a Christian Theocracy. It was put forward by American Terrorists, no different from Al Queda, who wish to force their religious beliefs on the rest of the country. it has no place in America. People came to build this country to get away from a place where the King wanted to be in charge of what religion "his subjects" were allowed to practice. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion for all everyone, Not just Christians. Church and state are separate things. It should remain so.

Ann H.
Ann Hansen7 years ago

No U.S. President has the singular authorization to "ignore," repeal, or do away with any constitutional law. It's called checks and balances. If we give a U.S. President the power to do this, then we will have a king or dictator, not a president. I would like to see DOMA go away, but there is a process.