Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know the difference between the 5th and 14th Amendments
AIPNews.com ^ | Feb. 23, 2011 | staff

Posted on 02/23/2011 2:09:33 PM PST by EternalVigilance

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know the difference between the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

From CNN :

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Attorney General Eric Holder today sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, after determining that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

Aside from the sheer immorality of this move, the equal protection clause is not in the Fifth Amendment, it's in the Fourteenth Amendment:

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  -- the Fourteenth Amendment

CNN has the text of Holder's letter here ...

Paragraph 1:

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.

 

*hat tip to Savvy at AIPNews for catching this!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial
KEYWORDS: doma; holder; homosexualagenda

1 posted on 02/23/2011 2:09:38 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

And this is the US AG? What a cad!


2 posted on 02/23/2011 2:11:28 PM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Not surprising. I’ve learned many lefties do not know the difference between a republic and a democracy. I wouldn’t be shocked if many enlightened humanists on the other side think that the Constitution is the one that Jefferson wrote in 1776.


3 posted on 02/23/2011 2:13:07 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Since they don’t follow it, why should they care what’s in it!


4 posted on 02/23/2011 2:13:25 PM PST by Lockbox (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Honestly, I can’t remember what the 15th is but Holder is the AG, what’s his excuse? Bush’s fault? Whitey’s fault?


5 posted on 02/23/2011 2:15:24 PM PST by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The 14th Amendment applies only to the States, not to the federal government. SCOTUS has ruled that actions by the federal government which violate equal protection are forbidden under the Fifth Amendment, in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
6 posted on 02/23/2011 2:15:37 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Holder has little knowledge of the Constitution...

now— for BREAKING NEWS.....


7 posted on 02/23/2011 2:16:14 PM PST by eeevil conservative (GIVE ME A PLACE TO STAND AND I WILL MOVE THE EARTH....Archimedes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Butbutbut.....the press says these are the best minds in the country. (they just didn't say which country)
8 posted on 02/23/2011 2:16:14 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

This jackass doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground.


9 posted on 02/23/2011 2:16:38 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Why should they care what any amendment says as they don’t care one whit about the Constitution.


10 posted on 02/23/2011 2:16:41 PM PST by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The "Best and the Brightest" of what America has to offer?

ROFL

I guess the USSC can go home now; The Messiah will interpret Constitutional issues without that pesky Court.

11 posted on 02/23/2011 2:18:28 PM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Still, the AG probably doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground either.


12 posted on 02/23/2011 2:18:37 PM PST by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

That may be. But there is no equal protection clause in the Amendment.


13 posted on 02/23/2011 2:18:40 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Separate school and state, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Btw, does anyone else see this as a signal to SCOTUS as to what their opinion will be? I do.


14 posted on 02/23/2011 2:19:56 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

This Holder clown from Obama’s Administration of Morons once famously said that America is a “Nation of cowards”.


15 posted on 02/23/2011 2:21:47 PM PST by Amagi (ObamaCare proposed a tax on Tanning Salons. That is RACISM STRAIGHT UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eeevil conservative
Holder The Obama Administration has little knowledge of the Constitution...

There, fixed that for you.

16 posted on 02/23/2011 2:22:43 PM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Are you saying that Holder’s references are correct, then?

On another thread someone indicated that the DADT repeal legislation somehow cited the DOMA (is that it, defense of marriage act)? So now that Holder/0bama are pulling out of DOMA, where does that leave the DODT repeal?


17 posted on 02/23/2011 2:22:56 PM PST by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
This jackass doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground.
You beat me to it. The second I saw this thread I did a word-search for the word "gound" and your post popped up.

Oh well, at least I get to repeat it.

18 posted on 02/23/2011 2:23:29 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I’m initially reading that Congress has standing and the option to defend DOMA in court. Thank God we won that house in November!!!


19 posted on 02/23/2011 2:24:07 PM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Holder is the US AG. What the fudge, this guy does not know the constitution. Boehner should simply send it back to holder with a big red mark on it. and simply also inform Holder it is the best interest of the USA to RESIGN IMMEDIATELTY< AS ERIC HOLDER YOU DO NOT KNOW THE US CONSTITUTION AND I AM REQUESTING THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO REVIEW YOUR STUPIDITY, AND YOU ARE IN CONTEMPT. Please do the right thing resign effective immediately.

Call Boehner 1 202 225 0600 Let him know even he is away from the office on recess.


20 posted on 02/23/2011 2:27:04 PM PST by hondact200 (Candor dat viribos alas (sincerity gives wings to strength) and Nil desperandum (never despair))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Well, of course our first affirmative-actioned AG would be under our first affirmative-actioned POTUS.
21 posted on 02/23/2011 2:27:28 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

And this is news?


22 posted on 02/23/2011 2:28:59 PM PST by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

“gound”
–noun
Gummy matter in sore eyes.
An obsolete or dialectal form of gown.
Wiktionary (1 definition)

–noun
(obsolete) mucus produced by the eyes during sleep


23 posted on 02/23/2011 2:31:29 PM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

And people are surprised? I know the MSM media isn’t because they don’t know either, otherwise it’s be flashed on CNN.


24 posted on 02/23/2011 2:32:00 PM PST by ReverendJames (Only A Painter Or A Liberal Can Change Black To White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Sounds to me that if they don’t wish to defend this law, then they should be defunded. We certainly don’t need justice lawyers sitting around with nothing to do.


25 posted on 02/23/2011 2:35:30 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Holder's letter made reference to the "equal protection component" of the Fifth Amendment. That is not an uncommon way, nowadays, for the concept of "reverse incorporation" to be expressed.

See, e.g., Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976): "The central purpose of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race. It is also true that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment contains an equal protection component prohibiting the United States from invidiously discriminating between individuals or groups. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954)."

26 posted on 02/23/2011 2:36:02 PM PST by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The due process clause applies against the federal government via the 5th amendment.


27 posted on 02/23/2011 2:38:39 PM PST by socalgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Well holy penumbras!


28 posted on 02/23/2011 2:42:12 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Chris Matthews soon to come to Holder’s defense. Stellar legal mind that he is.... < / sarc


29 posted on 02/23/2011 2:43:28 PM PST by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yikes!

Affirmative action at its finest. That is scary.


30 posted on 02/23/2011 2:45:12 PM PST by GatorGirl (Eschew Socialism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

No wonder spellcheck didn’t catch it. It’s a word!


31 posted on 02/23/2011 2:48:19 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Jailbirds
32 posted on 02/23/2011 2:49:35 PM PST by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Spell czech is knot yore friend!


33 posted on 02/23/2011 2:58:48 PM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Obama hires people around him based on how much the worship him, not on their abilities. I heard today that several of his cabinet members had not received so much as a phone call from him in over 2 years.


34 posted on 02/23/2011 3:23:06 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DSH
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

There is no such express "clause" in the Amendment.

Of course, even without such an explicit clause, I agree that the requirements in the Amendment apply to the the federal government, and should protect all persons.

At least the people's legitimate rights, of which sodomy is not one.

35 posted on 02/23/2011 3:26:35 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Separate school and state, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DSH

As usual, they have the world turned on its head.

DOMA is meant to protect states from having to accept sodomy fake marriage, just because other states have in some way or another (mostly by judicial fiat) accepted such immoral nonsense.

So, as usual, the Left has everything exactly backwards. This is just one more example.


36 posted on 02/23/2011 3:35:14 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Separate school and state, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: samtheman; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Maybe Holder doesn’t know his gound from a hole the butt. Or maybe he got gound from having his head up his butt so much.


37 posted on 02/23/2011 3:42:24 PM PST by Enterprise (TSA - The Silly Agency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
 
 
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know the difference between the 5th and 14th Amendments
 
He doesn't have to, no more than knowing the difference between a flat-blade and a phillips screwdriver. He's a hack whose job is to run interference for benefit of the regime. No more, no less. His job is safe for a long as he wants it, and he knows it.
 
 

38 posted on 02/23/2011 3:47:54 PM PST by lapsus calami (What's that stink? Code Pink ! ! And their buddy Murtha, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The people in charge took an oath to uphold the laws of America. Failure to due so is grounds for removal from office.


39 posted on 02/23/2011 3:56:07 PM PST by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

Ditto


40 posted on 02/23/2011 4:02:32 PM PST by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Eric Holder is no different from any other Obama appointment, none of them know chit from Chinola.


41 posted on 02/23/2011 4:02:38 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Barry the bastard and his hires don't consider the Constitution to be anything but a hindrance to their agenda, so they ignore it. It's quite natural that this elitist pissant Holder doesn't know much about the Constitution of This Republic ... he disdains it!
42 posted on 02/23/2011 4:06:20 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
There is no such express "clause" in the Amendment.

Your initial post was to the effect that Holder (or those at the Department of Justice who actually drafted the letter in question) don't know the difference between the 5th and 14th Amendments because the letter references "equal protection" in connection with the 5th Amendment.

That there is no "express" Equal Protection Clause in the Fifth Amendment goes without saying. It should also go without saying that, right or wrong, the Supreme Court long ago in fact found that there is an "equal protection component" to the 5th Amendment. Again, that may be correct as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence, or it may be wrong. But that is what the Court has found.

Given this, the DOJ letter hardly provides support for your assertion that Holder, et al. have revealed some gross misunderstanding of the Constitution.

43 posted on 02/23/2011 4:56:25 PM PST by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DSH

Many, if not most, lawyers will probably agree with you, and with Holder, on this point.

But I’m thinking most regular folks, who have to rely solely on what the actual words of the Constitution say, will agree with me. (After all, the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly requires “equal protection,” while the Fifth makes no express mention of it.)

In fact, the posts already on this thread are an illustration of the point.

Lawyers in America today are overwhelmingly caught up in straining at the gnats of the doctrines that have been built up around the law, even if the words of the Constitution don’t support them, while at the same time swallowing the camel by ignoring most of the important clear imperative requirements of what the document actually says and means.

Which raises an even more important point: If we all agree, which we apparently do, that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the states provide for the equal protection of the laws for all persons in their jurisdiction, and that the Fifth Amendment requires the national government to do the same, why are they not providing equal protection to all persons? Why are thousands of little persons continuing to be butchered in this country every single day?

Why does one subclass of immoral person have a “right” to do what our civilization has always considered to be an abominable act, while another subclass of persons don’t even have the most fundamental protection for the most important thing any human being has, their own life?


44 posted on 02/23/2011 5:18:39 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Separate school and state, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DSH
Given this, the DOJ letter hardly provides support for your assertion that Holder, et al. have revealed some gross misunderstanding of the Constitution.

Well, completely beside the point of whether he misunderstands equal protection, and which Amendment may or may not require it, he, and they, do grossly misunderstand the Constitution. Otherwise, they wouldn't be turning basic right and wrong on its head and claiming there is a "right" to do wrong.

45 posted on 02/23/2011 5:26:14 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Separate school and state, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DSH
One more point:

Ironically, apart from all the legal mumbo-jumbo that surrounds the question of incorporation, I think the Fifth Amendment was always intended to protect the God-given and therefore unalienable rights of all persons. And that obligation has always existed for all human governments, preceding the existence of a Fifth, or a Fourteenth Amendment - or a U.S. Constitution.

In fact, that's the cornerstone principle of our republic.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

46 posted on 02/23/2011 5:43:42 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Separate school and state, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Interesting questions, but rather far afield from your initial post, I think.

Eric Holder is, to say the least, a very poor Attorney General, but I do think that he "knows the difference between the 5th and 14th Amendments." He may have no regard for them, or for the Constitution itself, for that matter, but there was nothing in his characterization of the 5th Amendment today that suggests the sort of gross ignorance that you would apparently ascribe to him. With all due respect, I think you weaken your case by overstating it in such fashion.

For my part, I reject the notion that there is any "equal protection" issue here at all. I don't think that any legal status, or constitutional "classification," should be assigned to a person on account of his or her sexual practices.

47 posted on 02/23/2011 9:22:45 PM PST by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Could we impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for misfeasance? Doesn’t his duty as a Cabinet Officer, Attorney General, and representative of the American People require defending DOMA instead of doing the President’s bidding?


48 posted on 02/23/2011 9:32:02 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Holder and Obama both have little knowledge of the Constitution.

Can you say “affirmative action”?


49 posted on 02/23/2011 9:57:02 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Why are public employee unions attacking taxpayers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DSH

Even if I erred in my zeal to go after this worst of all Attorney Generals, we’ll survive that.

But will the republic survive the legal and political elites’ failure to provide equal protection to tens of millions of persons in the womb, or their determination to pervert equal protection by granting such it to perverted sexual licentiousness? It’s highly doubtful.

One thing we know for sure: tens of millions have not survived it.


50 posted on 02/24/2011 5:26:12 AM PST by EternalVigilance (But what is Freedom? Rightly understood, a universal license to be good. -- Hartley Coleridge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson