Sensenbrenner: If Obama Won't Support DOMA, House Will

House hires former Solicitor General to protect constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act.

This is an opinion column from U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls).

In February, the Obama Administration announced that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal courts.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes as solely between a man and a woman, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, after receiving strong bipartisan support from both houses of Congress. 
President Obama’s February announcement was delivered by Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter to Speaker John Boehner.  The letter notes that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will no longer defend DOMA in federal courts because the President believes that the statute violates "the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution.

The Obama Administration experienced a swift and overwhelming response to its controversial position on the statute.  Not only has the position sparked criticism of the President overstretching his executive powers to unilaterally deem a law unconstitutional, but his decision challenges the fundamental principles that have governed the sanctity of marriage in the United States since the early days of our Founding Fathers.  Additionally, more than 50 percent of the states in the U.S. have amended their state constitutions so that the legal definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman.    
Speaker Boehner recently took the necessary measures to ensure that the House of Representatives will be able to effectively intervene and defend the law in federal court by hiring former Cedarburg native and former Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Clement, who was working for the law firm King & Spalding, which was handling the case, has since resigned from the firm due to its decision to drop the DOMA cases based on the controversy it had already spurred.  Clement appears unperturbed by those who consider his resignation a bold response to his firm caving to political pressure.   According to Clement, his actions reflect his adherence to the principle that lawyers should not withdraw from their clients based on the nature of an issue.

In an effort to protect taxpayers from the ensuing financial burden of defending DOMA, Speaker Boehner sent a letter to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) requesting that all DOMA-related funds be transferred from the DOJ to the House of Representatives.  As Speaker Boehner voiced in the letter, “DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA.” He continued, “By the President’s action through the Attorney General we have no choice; the House now faces that additional burden and cost.”

Our Constitution entrusts the Supreme Court with the power to ultimately decide the constitutionality of laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act — not the Executive Branch.  As a longstanding supporter and original cosponsor of DOMA, I stand firm behind Speaker Boehner and support his action to equip the House with the resources necessary to uphold the constitutionality of the statute in the courts.

Say What? May 03, 2011 at 04:13 AM
So, let me get this straight. You would seek to have the national government fight lawsuits in court regarding this issue, thereby spending money that we dont have but it makes sense because you want to second guess Obama more than you wish to question the law which might indicate some alignment with progressive measures. Small government, lower taxes must be a hollow chant.
CowDung May 03, 2011 at 04:27 PM
It is the obligation of the government to defend the laws it creates against such challenges. A president cannot decide what laws he/she will defend or not. How would you feel if the next president decided not to defend Obamacare against constitutional challenges because they happen to disagree with that law? It's not an issue of being for or against the DOMA, it's about the president overstepping his authority.
W used "signing statements" to declare his intent not to follow whole laws and select portions of others. I admire Obama for taking this act publicly. When we need to control spending - I think deciding NOT to waste resources on defending unconstitutional laws is a great place to start. This law, like DADT, is a dinosaur that must go away. Supporters....evolve with us!
CowDung May 09, 2011 at 05:50 PM
Isn't it up to the courts to decide if a law is unconstitutional or not? What Obama is doing isn't the right way to go about it. As I stated before, we should work to change laws that we don't like--the constitution clearly provides the proper methods for doing that. We can't give any president the authority to decide for himself that a law is unconstitutional and shouldn't be defended...
CowDung May 09, 2011 at 05:55 PM
I'm still confused about this article--for a while this one was gone and there seemed to be a different one that I commented on. Now that one seems to be gone and this one is back...


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »