Posted by
Bill Crawford on Sunday, February 27, 2011 7:12:50 PM
That, I'm afraid is the standard that ends up coming out of the mouths of too many Americans. Some of them may not understand the implications of what they say, but they still end up in the same place.
So let's try an exercise, just for fun. Congress passes the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, with considerable bipartisan support. The President signs it into law. In 2011, Obama's Justice Department announces that it is unconstitutional, and will not be defended by the government in court.
Okay, now let's try another scenario. In 1964, Congress passes the Civil Rights Act with considerable bipartisan support. The President signs it into law. In 1968, George Wallace is elected President and two years later, he announces that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional (probably citing the 10th amendment) and his Justice Department will not act on it's basis anymore.
If you have a problem with both, you might well be a Constitutional originalist. If you have a problem with one and not the other, you are more likely to be a straight partisan.
If you take my concern for the law here and interpret it as an oblique way to hammer gay marriage, you are hopeless.