It is only March, but we may have an early Halloween this year because the founding fathers may be rolling in their graves yet again.
Last week, The Chimes reported that the Obama administration, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, had decided to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act because it deemed Section 3 of the law unconstitutional.
Excuse me? Did someone fail their American government class? Or are several federal officials not familiar with the idea to which they swore an oath to defend, namely, the Constitution? If lawmakers cannot seriously take the oath that they swear when entering office, then their disregard for the rule of law is not surprising.
Obama administration snubbing Constitution
Let us remind ourselves about the system of American government. The federal government is divided into the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches.
The legislative branch consists of two houses of Congress, which are the Senate and the House of Representatives. This branch has the duty to make laws.
President Obama and his administration form the executive branch. Their job is to simply enforce the laws that Congress makes.
Nevertheless, the Obama administration supplants constitutional dictates by declaring DOMA unconstitutional. The executive branch has no authority to make such a declaration or to determine the legitimacy of the law, even if the law is truly unconstitutional. Only the judicial branch has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.
Rebuttals addressed
Some may counter that the Obama administration has not overstepped constitutional bounds because it has simply decided to stop defending DOMA in court: It will still continue enforcing the law. However, if the Obama administration is no longer going to defend the law in court, it might as well stop enforcing the law. Enough grandstanding. Besides, the decision is illegitimate, not to mention an utter farce, because its justification rests upon overstepping constitutional bounds.
Still, others may mention that the courts have not sorted the constitutionality of DOMA. Such uncertainty, as a result, is grounds for the federal government to stop defending the law. Yet, if this argument is sound, then the Obama administration should not so fervently defend the new health care law because the courts have not sorted the constitutionality of that law either.
Why rule of law is necessary
The modus operandi, or mode of operation, of a pragmatist consists of bending laws for expediency and complying with them only when convenient. Pragmatism seems to triumph over principles in the mind of Attorney General Eric Holder and those in the Department of Justice, who are supposed to defend DOMA insofar as it remains law. Instead of following constitutional protocols, however, they sidestep them to obtain their own desired outcome. Yet unprincipled people cannot execute justice. Nor can justice exist without principles.
The issue at hand is not whether DOMA is constitutional or not. Even gay-rights advocates who oppose DOMA must concede that the rule of law must be upheld. Nobody is above the law, and sidestepping the rule of law is taking a step towards lawlessness. In fact, without the rule of law, gay-rights advocates and people in the minority stance for other issues would not have a voice in government.
Thus, regardless of one’s stance towards DOMA, the Obama administration’s brazenness is inadmissible. This behavior tramples underfoot the Constitution. The founding fathers wisely divided government into three branches, each with specific roles and authority, so that no single body could wield excessive power over the citizenry. This arrangement is a safeguard against tyranny, protecting individual liberty and a republican form of government.
Prop 8 – the California case
One simply has to look to at a similar case in California to realize how a disregard of the rule of law threatens a free society. In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot measure that amended the state constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and woman.
Since then, the legitimacy of the amendment has ping-ponged between the voice of the people and government officials. Last year, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional and struck it down. In effect, a single judge hijacked the democratic process by overruling the will of the people, who followed state constitutional protocol to pass the amendment.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suspended Walker’s ruling as Prop.8 awaits its appeals trial. Meanwhile, the new California state attorney general, Kamala Harris, another unprincipled pragmatist, is asking the appeals court to allow same-sex marriage to resume.
Stand up for democratic process
To be sure, the democratic process is certainly not perfect for resolving controversies, particularly those without a clear-cut answer. The people can make unsound decisions. Nonetheless, it is always possible for people to bring change because the same democratic process remains intact.
To reject the democratic process in favor of giving decision-making authority to a select group of so-called experts is no better. No a small group of people, such as a presidential administration, much less an individual judge, will ever possess a monopoly on knowledge to find the optimal solution to a controversy.
More important, compromising the system is a greater threat than the occasional bad decision of the majority. A single federal judge that overturns the will of the people or a presidential administration that oversteps constitutional restraints erodes the free society. Instead of a government that is “of, by, and for the people,” it is a government where the few dictate over the many.
