Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Did Newt Gingrich Call For Obama To Be Impeached Over DOMA, Or Not?

Did you hear same-sex marriage is no longer that big a deal in politics? With President Obama all but nullifying his administration’s core defense of DOMA, we should be in the middle of radio silence, even from conservative Republicans, about the issue then, right? Haha, not if you’re Newt Gingrich, who loves to find reasons to impeach presidents, and who tells Newsmax TV, “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. 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.” Some have interpreted these remarks as Gingrich calling for Obama to be impeached, but Team Gingrich insists, “Gingrich never raised impeachment nor did he say we were in a constitutional crisis. 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.” So maybe same-sex marriage really isn’t that big a deal in politics. But: Lefty media hypocrites? Still ruining the nation.

On:           Feb 27, 2011
Tagged: , ,
    • Spooky

      It speaks volumes about the state that Christianity is in when Berlusconi is invited to talk at a Christian Reformists party political rally? God help them!

      Feb 27, 2011 at 4:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spooky

      What are you trying to do to me, why did you remove the post about Berlusconi? Guys will think that I don’t know the difference between him and Newt Gingrich (even though I live in Australia).

      Feb 27, 2011 at 7:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Roman

      The Emperor has no clothes. His lack of credibility speaks for itself in promoting the persecution of Gay Americans with such an unconstitutional tool that he helped construct. This poster boy of traditional adultery, serial marriage and divorce on demand is a bully. Instead of asking for forgiveness for corrupting our Constitution and standing up for equality, he threatens another path of petty politics that focuses on personal destruction and wasting enormous sums of money and time. What a peach! He’s on the wrong side of history. He’s dangerous. He should be shunned.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 9:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks

      Of all the people to talk about defending marriage . . .

      Feb 27, 2011 at 9:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gregger

      So we’re taking morality lessons from the man who was cheating on his wife (#2) while she was being treated for cancer and then had her served with divorce papers while she was in the hospital.

      What a piece of excrement.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 9:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spooky

      Please believe me: there was a post here about Berlusconi and they deleted it and what I said about him turned up on a Post about Newt Gingrich (who happens to use his pseudo God endorsed polygamy against us, just because he is a sinful heterosexual in willful self deception and ignorance) I live in a different time zone to most of you and now it is gone.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hf2hvit

      Why do right-wingers love adultery and adulterers so much? You don’t see them throwing confirmed, admitted, and often repeat adulterers out of office or out of their party.


      Feb 27, 2011 at 10:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tazz602

      I wonder – would Newt and the Repugs have any issue if Pres. Obama decided not to defend the new health care law? I doubt it, hypocrisy in action.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • matt

      Ironic when the Republican Bush broke the law and snooped into our personal information, the Republican congress under Gingrich passed laws to take away public rights and protections from government, thus prevent impeachment of Bush… when the Democrat Obama says a law is unconstitutional Gingrich implies he is breaking the law of the land… When did religion determine law – with the Salem witch hunts? hmmmmm history repeats itself again….

      It is way past time to take away the entitlements (such as life long insurance and benefits) of old politicians so they have to have real jubs and see how Americans really live.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard

      Newt Gingrich was the first speaker of the house to ever be disciplined for ethics violations. The vote was overwhelming: 395 for, 28 opposed.

      He’s obviously still pretty butthurt about that.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • joe K

      Does not the signing statements that the Presidents use do the same thing? Don’t they attempt to void a law that was passed and signed by them?

      The squeeky wheel gets the oil, but is eventually replced. Keep squeeking Newt.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981

      Good grief Newt, go away! Take care of which ever wife you are on now, prepare for your next affair/divorce, and leave us the hell alone.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 8:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard

      @joe K:

      Portraying signing statements as a violation of the Presentment Clause is one way to look at it. Another view is that signing statements are an expression of the president’s duty to faithfully execute the office and his obligation to defend the constitution by not enforcing any unconstitutional act. That makes signing statements merely advance notice of the executive branch’s policy.

      The American president is an unusually powerful office; he is both head of government and head of state. That much power merits a lot of latitude, which engenders a lot of jealousy from legislators, each of whom has a tiny fraction of the president’s power, but no less ego.

      That said, since the signing statements are not part of the law itself, they have no legal force. In analyzing a given act, SCOTUS just ignores them.

      The judicial branch has the power to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the executive to act, or the legislative branch could enact a new law to specifically address the objection. Both are exceedingly rare. It’s all part of the fun of checks and balances in a tripartite republic.

      Feb 27, 2011 at 9:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller

      Isn’t it funny how all of the Republicans complaining about this are immoral serial divorcees who were committing adultery with their future “spouses” while still “married” to their original spouse?

      Gingrich, in particular, was sleeping with his second-wife-to-be, Marianne, while his first wife was dying of cancer in the hospital and served her with her divorce papers on her cancer ward bed.

      Then, he was widely reported by the gossip media to be having sex with his secretary (and third wife-to-be) in a car in the Congressional parking lot, while still married to Marianne.

      And he’s going to lecture people on “the sanctity of marriage?!?” LOL!

      Mar 1, 2011 at 8:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.