Eric Holder to state AGs: You don’t have to defend your state’s ban on gay marriage, you know

posted at 6:01 pm on February 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

Technically true but dumb and counterproductive of him to say so.

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.

“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.

As an example, Mr. Holder cited the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, which forced public school integration in 1954.

“If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities,” Mr. Holder said.

That’s what he told the NYT in an interview. Today he reiterated the point at a gathering of state attorneys general:

Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws in court must be “exceedingly rare” and reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.

“In general, I believe that we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation,” he said.

What good does any of this do? He doesn’t need to encourage any more legal challenges to gay marriage bans; there are a bunch already pending in federal and state courts and the ones that have already been heard have come down on Holder’s side. He doesn’t need to remind state AGs that they can decline to defend a law if they believe in good faith that it’s unconstitutional. California already took that position on Prop 8. Virginia’s newly elected AG, Mark Herring, took it last month. Holder himself took it on DOMA. Even conservative stalwart Ken Cuccinelli took it when he was attorney general of Virginia (albeit in a matter unrelated to gay marriage). State AGs are, by definition, experienced lawyers; they don’t need ethical tutelage from the guy who presided over Fast & Furious and who designated a reporter as a criminal co-conspirator so that he could snoop on him. It doesn’t even make sense politically for Holder to do this. Laying aside the propriety of the U.S. Attorney General grandstanding for liberals by pushing his “advice” on state legal departments, who doesn’t know at this point that Holder and his boss are entirely on the side of gay marriage? What extra goodwill does this earn O from gay rights activists and their sympathizers?

Beyond that, no matter how many caveats Holder uses to hedge against the precedent he’s setting here (“exceedingly rare,” “exceptional circumstances”), the fact is that he’s mainstreaming the practice of the executive ignoring the laws he’s sworn to defend. That’s entirely in keeping with his boss’s M.O. but it bothered the Supreme Court enough that they felt obliged to include this bit in the DOMA case they decided last year. Remember, Holder and the DOJ refused to defend DOMA in court; a third-party group wanted to defend it instead. The Court ruled that it could, simply because it’s a bad idea to let a president or governor decide which expressions of majority will are entitled to a hearing before a judge and which aren’t:

w

The more frequent conscientious recusal becomes, the more elections will decide which statutes do and don’t get a defense when challenged. Yeah, granted, an executive is ethically entitled to refuse to enforce a law he believes to be unconstitutional, but that’s not the rule Obama followed in refusing to enforce the ObamaCare employer mandate and, as this practice becomes more common, that’s not the rule AGs will follow in declining to enforce certain laws. They’ll refuse to enforce because of simple policy disagreement or political expedience, not because of constitutionality (although they’ll come up with some constitutional argument as a fig leaf for their decision). Presumably, the more liberal AGs refuse to enforce laws that interfere with a lefty cause celebre, the more righty AGs will respond in kind by looking for Tenth Amendment arguments to justify refusing to enforce various federal and state laws. Could be that America’s hot-button issues are destined to end up with private groups defending them in court as AGs left and right bow out over constitutional objections. Thanks, Holder.

Exit question: If you support legalized gay marriage, why on earth would you want a figure as divisive as Eric Holder putting even more of his fingerprints on it than he already has? The best thing he can do for SSM fans at this point, especially given the legal momentum they have, is to just sit down and shut up.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“A coalition of black pastors announced on Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that they are launching a campaign to gather one million signatures on a petition calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for violating his oath of office by trying “to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda.”

“President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have turned their backs on the values the American people hold dear, values particularly cherished in the black community: values like marriage, which should be strengthened and promoted, rather than weakened and undermined,” says a statement by the Coalition of African American Pastors that has been posted online with their impeachment petition.

“Our nation calls for the building up of a healthier marriage culture; instead, our elected leaders are bent on destroying marriage, remaking it as a genderless institution and reorienting it to be all about the desires of adults rather than the needs of children,” says the coalition.

“In pursuing this intention, the president and his administration are trampling the rule of law.Attorney General Holder in particular has used the influence of his office and role as the chief law enforcement figure in our nation to try to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda,” says the coaltion. :Millions of voters in 30 states have voted to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but Attorney General Holder is attempting single-handedly to throw those votes away!

“For abandoning the oath he swore in taking office and his duty to defend the common good, Attorney General Holder should be impeached by Congress,” says the coalition. “CAAP is calling on all men and women of good will to sign the following petition urging Congress to take action against the Attorney General’s lawlessness today!”

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/black-pastors-impeach-holder#sthash.FpfavPMx.dpuf

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Sooooo states don’t really have to enforce or defend things like 0bumblscare, gun control laws,…..

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Affirmative-action strikes again…..

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 6:04 PM

“The CAAP petition for the impeachment of Holder is addressed directly to the U.S. Congress.

“I write today to urge you to take immediate action against the Attorney General of the United States for his lawless attempts to undermine states sovereign laws regarding marriage,” says the CAAP petition. “Attorney General Holder should be impeached for abandoning his duty to uphold and defend the law and for pushing a radical agenda on the states in a manner out of keeping with the obligations of his office.”

“I urge you to bring impeachment against Eric Holder for his reckless attempts to undermine our states’ constitutional marriage laws and the voices and values of millions of voters,” the petition says.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/black-pastors-impeach-holder#sthash.FpfavPMx.dpuf

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Holder should to be executed for treason.

Flange on February 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Lawless

Rogue

Murphy9 on February 25, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Eric Holder to state AGs: You don’t have to defend your state’s ban on gay marriage, you know

You don’t have to defend Obamacare, y’know.

Stoic Patriot on February 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM

You know, does anyone, anywhere, believe that there won’t be an attempt to force religions to perform SSM? That some judge, carefully picked, won’t be tasked with destroying the 1st Amendment?

Of course, no doubt the left would say that this is all right and proper and that the biggest duty of American Government is to force leftism on unwilling people.

I am reminded of a passage in the Book of Mormon, wherein the unbelievers set a date that all the believers in Christ would be put to death if Christ didn’t come.

Believe in the Book of Mormon or no, I always thought that we’d be hard pressed to repeat such an event.

But it’s pretty clear how in todays world it could happen. How long? Ten years? At the rate they are pushing this stuff, 5 years before it’s illegal on pain of death to be a “bigot?” I’m pretty sure the death penalty would be championed by the leftists in this case.

Vanceone on February 25, 2014 at 6:09 PM

State AGs to to Eric Holder :

“(expletive)-OFF.”

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Pay no attention to the Black Racist who is Atty. Gen. he has nothing up his sleeve but his hate for all whites.

Black Commie Cult Crime boss is all he is.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 25, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Holder should to be executed for treason.

Flange on February 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

The first of many … my sentiments, exactly.

ShainS on February 25, 2014 at 6:11 PM

It doesn’t even make sense politically for Holder to do this. Laying aside the propriety of the U.S. Attorney General grandstanding for liberals by pushing his “advice” on state legal departments, who doesn’t know at this point that Holder and his boss are entirely on the side of gay marriage?

But it does. Holder and his bosses, the Democrats, are working on convincing the American people that whatever Obama says is the law, not whatever is actually written. This is simply another issue they are using as a means to strip the legislative and judicial branches of their power.

I care little about gay marriage as an issue (it means about as much to me as animal rights does), but it is pretty sickening watching it be used as the tip of the spear in a push to wipe out freedom of association and do further harm to freedom of speech in this country.

Doomberg on February 25, 2014 at 6:11 PM

In this, Year Five Anno Obama, the law in our country consists of whatever an elected or appointed Democrat wants it to be at any given time. That over-rides statutes or the Constitution.

Subotai Bahadur on February 25, 2014 at 6:12 PM

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 6:10 PM

.
Yup . . . you can’t have too many of the word “to” in the same short line.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 6:12 PM

In this, Year Five Anno Obama, the law in our country consists of whatever an elected or appointed Democrat wants it to be at any given time. That over-rides statutes or the Constitution.

Subotai Bahadur on February 25, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Typical timeline for bloodless coups. Next step is to keep Christians from participating in the marketplace.

Long Klieg and concertina.

Murphy9 on February 25, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Eric Holder has appointed himself The Supreme Justice.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Yes because it’s the job of attorney’s general to pick and choose which laws to enforce … in Venezuela. This is beyond pathetic … It’s a slippery slope to disaster and the end of the rule of law. Fools.

Whitey Ford on February 25, 2014 at 6:17 PM

The comeuppance will be sweet.

CWchangedhisNicagain on February 25, 2014 at 6:17 PM

…no matter how many caveats Holder uses to hedge against the precedent he’s setting here (“exceedingly rare,” “exceptional circumstances”), the fact is that he’s mainstreaming the practice of the executive ignoring the laws he’s sworn to defend.

Spot-on.

Although I do support state-recognition of same sex marriage…I’m also an opponent of state or federal governments ignoring laws, or even suggesting they be ignored. There’s a process in overturning a law…breaking it, or telling a state to break it, should not be one of them.

Gay marriage bans by states is, IMHO, unconstitutional under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. So the feds can either do whatever it is they do with state laws that violate federal/constitutional laws, or they can shut up.

JetBoy on February 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I think at this point we can say that all gay-sex marriage supporters are useful idiots for the Obama Fascist Party.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 6:19 PM

So, if under a conservative President someone challenges the tax code because nowhere in the Constitution is a progressive tax allowed as that was not part of what was amended for the income tax, then if the AG under that President thought that there was no way to defend against that and just let it sail through, that the Left would be A-OK with that?

And how about all the stuff put in for trying to push people into college… if someone brings a case against Title IX as being discriminatory in who it supports, then that could go down without a defense, as well? Affirmative action? How about the EPA, as that sort of power is nowhere described in the Constitution for Congress? Dept. of Energy?

If the Left thinks that this thing is all about gay marriage, then they had best start to revise just what they want in the way of law enforcement, because a slight change at the top might just bring much of what we currently have as overburdened government to an end if an AG refuses to defend it. Think very carefully about what you are asking for since you just might get it.

ajacksonian on February 25, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Shorter Eric Holder: Do whatever the fu** you want.

I’m with ya my man, I’ll ignore the laws just like you and Barry.

reddevil on February 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

I think at this point we can say that all gay-sex marriage supporters are useful idiots for the Obama Fascist Party.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Marginalize and silence dissent.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

The rule of men and political whim rather than the rule of law.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

We have been trying to get him to investigate civil rights abuses too…and he’s never responded:

http://www.originalpechanga.com/2013/10/ag-eric-holder-please-investigate-civil.html

So, no DOMA and no civil rights…what’s an AG to do??

originalpechanga on February 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM

For an administration that systematically ignores and subverts The Constitution for their ideological ends, it is interesting that they can invoke a non-tested opinion with no precedence when they perceive it to be in their interest. This falls under the librul maxim of “Yes, Virginia, there is a Constitution, when I want it to be.” Weren’t these traitor bast–ds all for upholding Stere Dacit and calling Justice Thomas an uncle Tom? If we only had an independent and free media to call these liar on what they do.

Old Country Boy on February 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM

The rule of men and political whim rather than the rule of law.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Yeah…Cause Monarchy worked so well in Europe we fought to keep it here.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Exit question:

0 secretly hates gays.

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Never underestimate the evil of desperate, petty douchebags.

22044 on February 25, 2014 at 6:27 PM

ajacksonian on February 25, 2014 at 6:21 PM

You’re correct, of course.

I’m pretty sure these Dem traitors running ruining the country are aware of this too.

What horrifies me is this: they seem utterly confident that, between ramming through illegal alien amnesty (with enough RINO support) and their ever-effective election/vote fraud, a Dem will win the Presidency in perpetuity (hence, no worries of conservatives ever achieving that authority) …

ShainS on February 25, 2014 at 6:29 PM

So, if I lived in the right state, I could go get me a full-auto machine gun, cuz we don’t HAVE to enforce or defend the laws we don’t like, right?

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Yeah…Cause Monarchy worked so well in Europe we fought to keep it here.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

They are busy attempting to see one of the leftist nobles from the House of Clinton take the throne. Hopefully the Republicans won’t be putting forth one of the Bush clan.

It’s starting to look a lot like monarchy.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Holder to state AGs: You don’t have to defend gay-marriage bans

A staggering statement from the Attorney General of the United States encouraging state attorneys general to ignore the laws they swore to uphold in favor of their own opinion of what the laws should be.

Made somehow much less than staggering by the fact that I would expect exactly this kind of crap from Eric Holder.

The whole push for SSM has seen new depths all around, from attorneys general simply declining to defend the laws of the state — in the case of Eric Holder himself, the nation — they were elected to defend, to judges asserting that any state that declined to support SSM is now violating the Constitution, even though 10 years ago the suggestion was laughable.

In case it’s not clear, the SSM advocates will take it any way they can get it. If the legislature won’t pass it, or if the people by referendum reject SSM, and even add that rejection to their state constitutions, then they’ll settle for lawsuits, judges, executives who allow it by simply refusing to enforce the laws — anything at all that moves the ball in their direction.

Once again, there is no bottom to Eric Holder. He just keeps getting lower….

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

(Sigh!!) 3 more years of this …

majorzot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

no matter how many caveats Holder uses to hedge against the precedent he’s setting here (“exceedingly rare,” “exceptional circumstances”), the fact is that he’s mainstreaming the practice of the executive ignoring the laws he’s sworn to defend. That’s entirely in keeping with his boss’s M.O.

Nailed it.

They will RUE the day they opened this lawless Pandora’s Box. It cannot be closed again, and the reality is that someone will eventually come to power, with whom they vehemently disagree, who will choose to do to the law what they have done. Pick and choose, rewrite and ignore.

It’s lawlessness and liberals shouldn’t be comfortable with it, but they are. Screw ‘em for that.

xNavigator on February 25, 2014 at 6:32 PM

“douchebags” have some pride and honor, Obama and Holder not so much.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 25, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Exit question: If you support legalized gay marriage, why on earth would you want a figure as divisive as Eric Holder putting even more of his fingerprints on it than he already has? The best thing he can do for SSM fans at this point, especially given the legal momentum they have, is to just sit down and shut up.

Because the ultimate goal isn’t state recognition of gay marriage – it’s a cultural and legal structure whereby liberals are free to ignore the rule of law for themselves and inflict it on others. Sure, they also want the states to recognize gay marriage but that’s not what this movement is really about. As they’ve shown in a number of other areas they want the state to force people to celebrate them and surrender their rights of religion, speech and association as a precondition of entering the public square.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Just to be clear, what Holder and his boss Obama are saying is..

“Vote your ass’s off, we do not give a rats ass how you vote.”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

If you support legalized gay marriage, why on earth would you want a figure as divisive as Eric Holder putting even more of his fingerprints on it than he already has? The best thing he can do for SSM fans at this point, especially given the legal momentum they have, is to just sit down and shut up.

Ah! But this gives political coverage to filthy traitors like VA’s AG who decided to support the gay’s lifestyle choice as normal within two weeks of swearing an oath to defend Virginia’s constitution who rightfully puts marriage as a man/woman thing and not something for sodomites.

Seriously, even if you agree with the left that sodomy is a legitimate and normal lifestyle, the law is the law. And this nation has always been about the rule of law. If sodomites want to change the law, let them do it in the normal way and not the way advocated by Holder and others.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Yeah…Cause Monarchy worked so well in Europe we fought to keep it here.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

They are busy attempting to see one of the leftist nobles from the House of Clinton take the throne. Hopefully the Republicans won’t be putting forth one of the Bush clan.

It’s starting to look a lot like monarchy.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Well Hitler was a monarch in every way except a crowning ceremony wasn’t he?

Obama and Holder et,al. are Fascists.

Fascist is as Fascist does.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:36 PM

will the next gop AG follow suit? what’s good for the goose and all?
seriously….these folks get away with a lot of crapola that if a GOP president and administration did would cause 24.7 outrage and calls for impeachment

where is the justice?????

makes my blood boil

cmsinaz on February 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Then we as citizens are no longer bound or required to follow laws we disagree with.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Gay marriage bans by states is, IMHO, unconstitutional under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. So the feds can either do whatever it is they do with state laws that violate federal/constitutional laws, or they can shut up.

JetBoy on February 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM

There isn’t a state that bans gay marriage. They do ban polygamy (that’s what a ban looks like).

The 14th amendment demands gay marriage but it doesn’t the right to vote for blacks or women? Really?

The 14th amendment demands equal protection when the STATE is depriving citizens of life, liberty or property. That has nothing to do with a marriage license. And if it did then you’d also have no grounds to deny anyone in any relationship or situation the “protections” that come from a “marriage license”.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

and naturally the only folks talking about this is Fox…the rest of the lsm…yawn, did holder say something?

cmsinaz on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Obama and Holder et,al. are Fascists.

Fascist is as Fascist does.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:36 PM

The scary part is how fast its happening. Far too many people simply do not care or even understand why these things are a problem.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

I think at this point we can say that all gay-sex marriage supporters are useful idiots for the Obama Fascist Party.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Yep.

reddevil on February 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM

(Sigh!!) 3 more years of this …

majorzot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

IMO, the revolt will happen well before then. The point where this stuff will be shut down and the filthy lazy stupid rat-eared coward will be neutralized.

BTW, Ed and Allah were supportive of Obama in 2009. They’ve never mea culpa’d their demands we give this bastard a chance before becoming critical.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Conservative activists file motion in Miami-Dade court to prevent same-sex couples from marrying – @MiamiHerald

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Senator Ted Cruz ‏@SenTedCruz 39m

Holder encouraging states to follow lawless lead & not defend state marriage laws enacted by elected representatives http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/us/more-federal-privileges-to-extend-to-same-sex-couples.html

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 6:40 PM

xNavigator on February 25, 2014 at 6:32 PM

however, we have squishy gop up in DC they won’t allow any of that…

cmsinaz on February 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

(Sigh!!) 3 more years of this …

majorzot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I admire your optimism.

Kataklysmic on February 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Exit question: If you support legalized gay marriage, why on earth would you want a figure as divisive as Eric Holder putting even more of his fingerprints on it than he already has? The best thing he can do for SSM fans at this point, especially given the legal momentum they have, is to just sit down and shut up.

Because the ultimate goal isn’t state recognition of gay marriage – it’s a cultural and legal structure whereby liberals are free to ignore the rule of law for themselves and inflict it on others. Sure, they also want the states to recognize gay marriage but that’s not what this movement is really about. As they’ve shown in a number of other areas they want the state to force people to celebrate them and surrender their rights of religion, speech and association as a precondition of entering the public square.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM

The goal is to obliterate any opposition.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

You don’t have to pay taxes any more.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Is it me, or has this rogue AG just made an argument for nullification – for me, but not for thee? This is the kind of Federal overreach that set up the perceived need for the various states of the South to secede from an avaricious North in 1860-61. Now, it’s not just the Old South. Grumblings of ‘separation’ are being heard all over the ‘Union’, serious or not. When sovereign states begin to see their demise at the hands of a corrupt Federal Gummint, hmmm…

vnvet on February 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM

(Sigh!!) 3 more years of this …

majorzot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

What makes you think we will have another general election?

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:43 PM

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

They throw around words like ban and Jim Crow when really if they were every really faced with a legitimate ban or Jim Crow they would pi$$ their pants.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 6:44 PM

0 secretly hates gays.

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Self loathing?

Mimzey on February 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

(Sigh!!) 3 more years of this …

majorzot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I admire your optimism.

Kataklysmic on February 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

(Sigh!!) 3 more years of this …

majorzot on February 25, 2014 at 6:31 PM

What makes you think we will have another general election?

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Indeed. As long as Boehner and McConnell and Romney and McVain and Ryan and Rubio and Reid and Nanzi get theirs they probably won’t care.

The Miracle in Philadelphia may finally be about to hit the fan.

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 6:48 PM

You just wait ’til Hillary gets in!

‘Cons!

Lanceman on February 25, 2014 at 6:48 PM

You just wait ’til Hillary gets in!

‘Cons!

Lanceman on February 25, 2014 at 6:48 PM

You already got one today right? liberalrules?

Murphy9 on February 25, 2014 at 6:53 PM

The scary part is how fast its happening. Far too many people simply do not care or even understand why these things are a problem.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Many people are now dependent on government for the staples.

This is why we’ve seen the growth of food stamps and unemployment.

Many people are also not informed and an ignorant populace is an easily manipulated populace.

Caesar won his dictatorship by supplying the hoi polloi with bread and circuses.

How was he able to be successful with that strategy?

By the time Caesar marched across the Rubicon, Rome no longer produced enough staples to feed her own citizens. The entrenched elite ruling class owned all of the land and controlled access to staples, they also manipulated the citizens based on inculcating them into accepting the superiority of an Aristocratic class. The Republic hadn’t been a republic for a very long time. It was a shell of itself.

The citizenry had been cowed and bought.

The Mafia originated with the ruling class of Rome, preceding the Roman Empire and then consolidated by that Empire.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM

There isn’t a state that bans gay marriage. They do ban polygamy (that’s what a ban looks like).

The 14th amendment demands gay marriage but it doesn’t the right to vote for blacks or women? Really?

The 14th amendment demands equal protection when the STATE is depriving citizens of life, liberty or property. That has nothing to do with a marriage license. And if it did then you’d also have no grounds to deny anyone in any relationship or situation the “protections” that come from a “marriage license”.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

THIS ^^^^^

reddevil on February 25, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Indeed. As long as Boehner and McConnell and Romney and McVain and Ryan and Rubio and Reid and Nanzi get theirs they probably won’t care.

The Miracle in Philadelphia may finally be about to hit the fan.

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 6:48 PM

They’re gonna try.

Doomed to fail though.

It’s a big country and the citizenry is arming themselves by the week.

When states like California, Colorado etc. is even discussing splitting into separate states you know there’s flop sweat in the Capital amongst the Statists.

I think that’s why they’ve become so brazen…creating confusion and chaos.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:00 PM

There isn’t a state that bans gay marriage. They do ban polygamy (that’s what a ban looks like).

The 14th amendment demands gay marriage but it doesn’t the right to vote for blacks or women? Really?

The 14th amendment demands equal protection when the STATE is depriving citizens of life, liberty or property. That has nothing to do with a marriage license. And if it did then you’d also have no grounds to deny anyone in any relationship or situation the “protections” that come from a “marriage license”.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

In all genuine honesty, I haven’t the slightest clue as to what you’re saying there. When did I say anything about blacks and women? As for state bans on gay marriage, I’m merely quoting the title of this post:

Eric Holder to state AGs: You don’t have to defend your state’s ban on gay marriage, you know

As for equal protection…

…the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Source

JetBoy on February 25, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Pivot, advance. Typical.

Murphy9 on February 25, 2014 at 7:02 PM

How is our system of enacting laws supposed to work when both sides of an issue aren’t heard when a law comes up for review? It’s like having a criminal trial when the accused doesn’t have an attorney: How do you trust your guilty verdict without an effective advocate for both sides?

We have a system of judicial review we’ve all agreed to live under, with multiple layers of courts filled with multiple judges who’s decisions are subject to review and counter-argument. One man doesn’t get to decide for an entire population which laws are constitutional and which aren’t. If an AG can’t do his job of representing the law in good conscience, he should resign, and no hard feelings. If he instead arrogates to himself the authority to tilt the scales of our legislative and judicial system, he should be prosecuted and jailed for criminal dereliction of duty.

If we can’t trust the court’s decisions on constitutionality because they’ve been sabotaged by the AGs, then why should we then follow the laws? Nobody will play the game if only one side abides by the rules.

Socratease on February 25, 2014 at 7:03 PM

+1000 Comments or bust…

OmahaConservative on February 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Hey State AG’s: You can indict HOLDER on STATE CHARGES for crimes he’s committed against your people.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM

…is this the “Breaking on TOWNHALL” thread?

KOOLAID2 on February 25, 2014 at 7:09 PM

teh most transparent administraition evah!

dmann on February 25, 2014 at 7:12 PM

How is our system of enacting laws supposed to work when both sides of an issue aren’t heard when a law comes up for review? It’s like having a criminal trial when the accused doesn’t have an attorney: How do you trust your guilty verdict without an effective advocate for both sides?

We have a system of judicial review we’ve all agreed to live under, with multiple layers of courts filled with multiple judges who’s decisions are subject to review and counter-argument. One man doesn’t get to decide for an entire population which laws are constitutional and which aren’t. If an AG can’t do his job of representing the law in good conscience, he should resign, and no hard feelings. If he instead arrogates to himself the authority to tilt the scales of our legislative and judicial system, he should be prosecuted and jailed for criminal dereliction of duty.

If we can’t trust the court’s decisions on constitutionality because they’ve been sabotaged by the AGs, then why should we then follow the laws? Nobody will play the game if only one side abides by the rules.

Socratease on February 25, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Upheaval…Chaos

Obama et,al. have done this in every stable sector.

The Economy

The Military

Border Security

Privacy

The Judiciary

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:21 PM

As far as this Administration is concerned, there are no constitutional barriers. There is no State sovereignty.

What State attorney generals do or do not do is none of Holder’s business. They do not work for him. He is one of the worst Attorney Generals this nation has ever had, and that’s saying something. If he wasn’t being protected by Obama, he would be gone by now.

oldennis on February 25, 2014 at 7:25 PM

King Obama the Despot tried to intimidate Governors today…

“Monday Republican Gov. Rick Perry’s comments after meeting with President Obama.

“I don’t mind telling you I was a bit troubled today by the tone of the president,”

“For the president of the United States to look Democrat and Republican governors in the eye and say ‘I do not trust you to make decisions in your state about education, about transportation-infrastructure,’ that is really troubling.”

“He said in that meeting ‘if I hear any of you pushing back, about making statements about Washington spends too much money, you’ll hear from me, If I’m a Democrat governor, if I’m a Republican governor, I’m highly offended by that. I will suggest that making a political statement about the Guard is not in the best long-term interests of this country.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/02/25/Perry-Troubled-Offened-by-Obamas-Tone

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:27 PM

“He said in that meeting ‘if I hear any of you pushing back, about making statements about Washington spends too much money, you’ll hear from me, If I’m a Democrat governor, if I’m a Republican governor, I’m highly offended by that. I will suggest that making a political statement about the Guard is not in the best long-term interests of this country.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/02/25/Perry-Troubled-Offened-by-Obamas-Tone

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:27 PM

This Emperor needs to be deposed as soon as possible.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Just why, exactly, do we have a DoJ?

We did well without one for a long, long time.

ajacksonian on February 25, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Just why, exactly, do we have a DoJ?

We did well without one for a long, long time.

ajacksonian on February 25, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Before we didn’t have an Emperor who needed “law” twisted to his ends.

And to shield him from arrest.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:38 PM

This Emperor needs to be deposed as soon as possible.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:33 PM

More complete quote by Gov. Perry.

Watch the video at the Breitbart link or at Rightscoop posted below the quote.

“Perry went on to say that Obama was going to hollow out the National Guard and warned the state governors not to push back against it or they would hear from him:

“Democrat Governors are very concerned, I will suggest to you, about what they heard today about the Guard. I left the United States Air Force in the mid ‘70s, in February of 1977, as our country was going through a similar period of time of reducing the force. But those men and women who had extraordinary expertise in combat were going into the Guard and into the Reserves.

I hope we’re not about to make a tragic mistake in this country by hollowing out our Guard in our states in some political statement of ‘you’re all going to feel the pain’. Because that’s certainly what I heard from the president of the United States today.

As a matter of fact he said in that meeting “if I hear any of you pushing back, making statements about Washington spends too much money, you’ll hear from me.”

If I’m a Democrat governor, if I’m a Republican governor, I’m highly offended by that.

Yes it is our duty to defend the people of this country. But I will suggest that making a political statement about the Guard is not in the best long-term interest of this country and it’s certainly not in the best long-term interest of those men and women who have committed and often times sacrificed greatly for this country…”

http://therightscoop.com/rick-perry-i-was-troubled-today-by-the-tone-of-the-president/

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:41 PM

http://therightscoop.com/rick-perry-i-was-troubled-today-by-the-tone-of-the-president/

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Obama has no authority to hollow out the National Guard.

They are the STATE MILITIAS after all.

But I can see why he’d want to. They are a great threat to his reign.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Obama is politicizing the National Guard and stated this openly to the Governors…as a means to Intimidate opposition.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Obama has no authority to hollow out the National Guard.

They are the STATE MILITIAS after all.

But I can see why he’d want to. They are a great threat to his reign.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Obama has as much authority as he wants.

That’s what he said to the governors and he’ll use it against those governors that oppose him.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Obama is politicizing the National Guard and stated this openly to the Governors…as a means to Intimidate opposition.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:44 PM

If this doesn’t tell you that coup and Dictatorship are his aims in this “year of action” nothing else will.

The man needs to be arrested.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Obama has as much authority as he wants.

That’s what he said to the governors and he’ll use it against those governors that oppose him.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 7:46 PM

He hasn’t this authority. In fact he has NO AUTHORITY over the State Militias, only if the STATE gives it to him! This was yet another awful court decision in the throes of the civil rights debacle.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:49 PM

One thing’s for sure… Obama is going to make a power grab that is so egregious states WILL start defying him.

And some court is going to make a decision so egregious that States will start defying THE COURTS.

The absence of the RULE OF LAW leads to the end of RESPECT FOR LAW.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:57 PM

God bless Holder’s pointed little head.

Haven’t read all the comments, but I’m sure as the rain that falls from heaven …………that child molesters, murderers, home invaders would applaud the idea of which laws are to be upheld and the ones to be just ignored.

What a novel idea. *cough* anarchy

avagreen on February 25, 2014 at 8:00 PM

If this doesn’t tell you that coup and Dictatorship are his aims in this “year of action” nothing else will.

The man needs to be arrested.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Caesar’s argument to the hoi polloi was the way toward stability was to have a Dictator for life. This was accomplished with his nephew who became the first Emperor.

He hasn’t this authority. In fact he has NO AUTHORITY over the State Militias, only if the STATE gives it to him! This was yet another awful court decision in the throes of the civil rights debacle.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 7:49 PM

He has as much authority as he’s willing to exercise and that an impotent congress or corrupt courts will support.

The general public isn’t even aware of what is going on and are being manipulated by the media’s characterization of events.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Well, I can see from reading the posts above, this is receiving much more serious input than my puny little post.

avagreen on February 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM

He has as much authority as he’s willing to exercise and that an impotent congress or corrupt courts will support.

The general public isn’t even aware of what is going on and are being manipulated by the media’s characterization of events.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 8:01 PM

He has no such authority. He has OPENLY proclaimed Treason, Sedition, and Rebellion against the Republic. He has disqualified himself for office, and thus, any immunity. He should be arrested on sight.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 8:07 PM

This means pro-2nd amendment AGs don’t have to defend any laws that restrict it?

That’s what I’m hearing. Basically the law is the AGs to determine?

Spliff Menendez on February 25, 2014 at 8:09 PM

This means pro-2nd amendment AGs don’t have to defend any laws that restrict it?

That’s what I’m hearing. Basically the law is the AGs to determine?

Spliff Menendez on February 25, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Exactly. And by implication any FEDERAL LAWS that restrict it. Such as arresting any ATF goons who tried to, for example, prevent Constitutional Carry of Browning Ma Deuce’s if an AG was so inclined…

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Earth to Holder: Yes they do. IT’S THE LAW!

sadatoni on February 25, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Exit question: If you support legalized gay marriage, why on earth would you want a figure as divisive as Eric Holder putting even more of his fingerprints on it than he already has? The best thing he can do for SSM fans at this point, especially given the legal momentum they have, is to just sit down and shut up.

I wish all the state AG’s would defend the marriage laws that are the relics of bigotry. If they have to, they could end their defense with a personal statement that they hope they lose, but it not their job to make moral decisions. It’s their job to defend the law whatever it is, and let other people make those moral decisions. This is not like Nazi Germany, because in Nazi Germany you couldn’t have any expectation that unjust laws would be overturned.

I also think it is wise that who wish to keep the anti-SSM provisions feel like they weren’t cheated.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Very good article Allahpundit, very good.

SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I wish all the state AG’s would defend the marriage laws that are the relics of bigotry. If they have to, they could end their defense with a personal statement that they hope they lose, but it not their job to make moral decisions. It’s their job to defend the law whatever it is, and let other people make those moral decisions. This is not like Nazi Germany, because in Nazi Germany you couldn’t have any expectation that unjust laws would be overturned.

I also think it is wise that who wish to keep the anti-SSM provisions feel like they weren’t cheated.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Same sex societies are dead ends of evolution. They can’t reproduce.
Therefore they can’t survive.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM

IMPEACH HOLDER..IMPEACH OBAMA..NOW!!! I know it’s not possible but a man can dream

sadsushi on February 25, 2014 at 9:05 PM

IMPEACH HOLDER..IMPEACH OBAMA..NOW!!! I know it’s not possible but a man can dream

sadsushi on February 25, 2014 at 9:05 PM

At this they don’t NEED to be impeached. They are both so far in breech of the law that they can be ARRESTED ON SIGHT.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Same sex societies are dead ends of evolution. They can’t reproduce.
Therefore they can’t survive.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Well, that’s a pretty weird fantasy you have there. Every society from the dawn of time has been majority heterosexual as far as I have heard. The question is how to deal with the love of the homosexual minority.

But I guess I should address your Sci-Fi land. Via the magic of turkey basters, an exclusively homosexual society could survive fine, but thanks for your concern.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Well, that’s a pretty weird fantasy you have there. Every society from the dawn of time has been majority heterosexual as far as I have heard. The question is how to deal with the love of the homosexual minority.

But I guess I should address your Sci-Fi land. Via the magic of turkey basters, an exclusively homosexual society could survive fine, but thanks for your concern.

thuja on February 25, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Homosexuality is a deformity. You treat it.

ConstantineXI on February 25, 2014 at 9:22 PM

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Wc, you might want to learn a little history before you start spouting it.

Old Country Boy on February 25, 2014 at 9:29 PM

In all genuine honesty, I haven’t the slightest clue as to what you’re saying there. When did I say anything about blacks and women? As for state bans on gay marriage, I’m merely quoting the title of this post:

Eric Holder to state AGs: You don’t have to defend your state’s ban on gay marriage, you know

As for equal protection…

…the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Source

JetBoy on February 25, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Don’t know if you’re still following this but here’s my response.

You didn’t say anything about blacks and women. But neither did the 14th amendment. My point is that the 14th amendment didn’t grant blacks or women the right to vote. We needed the 15th and 19th amendments for that. This proper and historical understanding of what the 14th actually says and means renders the definition you provided nonsensical.

But despite it being nonsensical it is the meaning that has been tortured out of the 14th amendment by the courts. But even the courts don’t even believe that definition. Not really. And neither do “gay rights” advocates. Because if that is the new and canonical meaning of the 14th amendment then it also renders the tax code and entitlement systems suspect and untenable. It also clearly means the states must also grant the “protections” of “marriage” to polygamists and any other unions “similarly situated” the same benefits. But that’s now how the courts see it and it’s not how the “gay rights” crowd sees it.

The 14th amendment has become just another penumbra and emanation for liberals to read precisely what they want it to mean and nothing more despite the utter inconsistency of how this new meaning is applied.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Bmore

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 10:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2