I ACTUALLY THINK OBAMA'S RIGHT in his refusal to
enforce defend DOMA.
Not technically, because he's -- you know -- wrong on the merits of the question. But he's right constitutionally.
Any citizen, including most especially officers of the government, is bound to obey his conscience in constitutional matters. I find it despicable that judges have been able to get away with denying citizens standing in constitutional matters and haven't been strung up from the handiest suitable lamp post on a first offense.
If a law is, as a matter of fact, flatly contradictory to the Constitution, then it is ipso facto null and void, and a court's acknowledgement of that fact is just icing on the cake. Nor is a court's refusal to accept the unconstitutionality assertion against a particular law dispositive. Endless repetition may be required to hammer the lesson home.
It took something the like in the case of slavery. It will probably take something the like with Obamacare, the graduated income tax, gun control -- hell, the highway administration.
We have to keep beating the drum of freedom until the idiots hear the rhythm of it. And then we have to keep it up lest they backslide.
Of course, you have to be right on the merits, and there's where Obama falls short.
But the utterly despicable cowardice of congresscritters' being most assuredly aware of the unconstitutional nature of McCain-Feingold, and the President's awareness of it, and the formers' voting for it and the latter's signing it, and THEN the Supreme Court's failure to strike the law down entirely OUGHT to be an object lesson in the perils of lackadaisicality ...ish ...ness.
Update: corrected "enforced" to read "defend." Thanks to Fran in comments for the straight-setting.