Kathryn Beich Katydids Candy Rochester,ny

Newt Gingrich: Obama Could Be Impeached Over Gay Marriage Reversal

By Paul Bedard

Posted: February 25, 2011
Print

*
*
retweet
* Share This

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who plans within two weeks to announce if he will run for president, said today that if President Obama doesn't change his mind and order his Justice Department to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans in Congress should strike back and even consider impeachment proceedings.

"I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job," said Gingrich. "His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent."

[See a slide show of the 10 worst presidents.]

He didn't call for immediate impeachment hearings, but didn't rule them out if Obama balks at any congressional demands to enforce the law.

[Update: A Gingrich spokesman writes to say that Gingrich did not raise the impeachment issue himself. "Gingrich never raised impeachment nor did he say we were in a constitutional crisis," the Gingrich spokesman says. "His remarks, as can be seen in the video, were to illustrate the hypocrisy of the media and the left. He explicitly says that Obama did not intend to spark a constitutional crisis but that the president is acting outside of his constitutional role, but that does not mean that there is a constitutional crisis."] Gingrich made his comments to Newsmax TV which has become the go-to place for potential GOP presidential candidates to make news. Just this week Mike Huckabee visited and Newsmax says that Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty plan to stop by next week. [See editorial cartoons on gay marriage.]

The president's decision not to enforce the law that protects traditional marriage was a major policy switch and was seen as a bow to the gay community that has pushed hard to win the right to marriage in many states. Gays have been politically active for Obama, though some have been critical of his defense of traditional marriage. [See editorial cartoons about President Obama.]

Just today, the president also gave another olive branch to the community, naming the first gay social secretary for the White House. According to the Advocate, a gay journal, Jeremy Bernard has served in several gay organizations and most recently was the assistant to the U.S. ambassador to France. [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]

Gingrich's call for quick GOP reaction to the Justice Department's decision to stop enforcing the marriage act was seen as a bid for the conservative and Tea Party vote, a base he would rely on if he decides to get into the presidential race.

In talking about the president's action, in fact, he raised Sarah Palin's name and suggested that she would be under fire if she ever decided not to enforce a major social law. "Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe v. Wade in her view 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. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment," said Gingrich. [See photos of Palin and her family.]

Gingrich noted that Obama supported the law during the campaign. "He is breaking his word to the American people," Gingrich said. Also, he added, "He swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act," Gingrich said.

* See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.
* See editorial cartoons about Obama.
* See who has been visiting the White House.



* More Washington Whispers posts

* Reader Comments
* Read All 59 Comments
* Add Comment

Is John Breland bucking for a court martial?

Mr. Breland, if you really are a commissioned officer in the United States Army then you should familiarize yourself with 10 USC, Section 888, Article 88 which defines the offense of "Contempt toward officials"

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the

President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense,

the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland

Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State,

Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall

be punished as a court-martial may direct.

If you think that the president should be impeached that's fine, but you have no right to identify yourself as an officer in the Army and then call for his impeachment. Making political statements in a public forum while identifying yourself as a member of the United States Army is strictly prohibited and if you think that the Army won't throw the book at you for that sort of thing you should do some research on what happened to General Edwin Walker or LTC Terry Lakin.

You might also want to consider these wise words from General Douglas MacArthur about the role of the military in American society.

And through all this welter of change and development, your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable: it is to win our wars.

Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purpose, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishments; but you are the ones who are trained to fight.

Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.

Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation’s war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.

These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.

[report comment]

Wile E. Quixote of WA @ Feb 25, 2011 22:44:46 PM

How bad was it when Reagan did it?

Or George H. W. Bush? Bill Clinton? George W. Bush? They all did it. Multiple times. I read that there have been 14 occasions since 2004 that the DOJ informed Congress that it would not be defending a statute in court. I wish the writer of that article had been more clear, but one thing is certain: George W. Bush did it.

I wonder if Mr. Breland would be so eager to call for some sort of penalty for our former Commander-in-Chief.

Truth be told, there's a statute governing what the AG must do if the DOJ will not be defending a law. You don't think Holder informed Congress because he just felt like it? It's codified in law.

But if it's a dereliction of duty for the AG to refuse to defend a law, why do we have a law on what the AG should do in that case?

[report comment]

John D of CA @ Feb 25, 2011 22:37:01 PM

Jackiemc

Is an adulterer Newt Gingrich, he trades in for a new wife dna Every 10 Years He Is Proud of It. He can not defend His own marriage. He Is Not an honorable man.

[report comment]

Jackie McGregor of WI @ Feb 25, 2011 10:32:05 p.m. PM


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/02/25/ newt-Gingrich-obama-"could-be-impeached-over-gay-marriage-reversal