- Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Topic - Paul D. Clement
The federal government has a "powerful interest" in a single, uniform definition of marriage, even if it excludes gay unions that are legal in individual states, the lawyer defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act said Wednesday as the Supreme Court concluded two days of landmark arguments on gay marriage.
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration's claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will take the case of Arizona's tough immigration crackdown law, adding yet another contentious clash between the Obama administration and the states to its docket.
Efforts to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act are in full swing, as a major lawsuit advances, another lawsuit is filed, and a Senate panel meets soon to consider legislation to overturn the law.
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II is strongly criticizing the Obama administration for abandoning its defense of a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman — the latest in a series of high-profile actions regarding gay marriage from the state's top prosecutor.
The House of Representatives has failed to defend its federal marriage law, and it should be thrown out, attorneys for six gay couples and a gay widower said in recent court papers.
Attorneys for the House of Representatives this week asked a federal court to throw out a case against the Defense of Marriage Act, saying the 1996 law is both constitutional and rational.
President Obama's health care law received a chilly reception Wednesday from a federal appeals court that seemed wary of approving a major expansion of government coercion over the economic activity of millions of Americans.
A top partner in the law firm that abruptly dropped the House of Representatives as its client in defending the federal law defining marriage blamed the move on "an unfortunate misunderstanding" that caused the firm to lose one of its top lawyers.
More than a week after a top Atlanta law firm dropped the contract to defend the federal marriage statute under pressure from gay groups, the legal and public relations fallout shows no signs of easing.
In preparing the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman - attorney Paul D. Clement was twice cited as saying attorneys must defend unpopular political causes ("Firm drops defense of marriage case," Page 1, April 26).
The Republican leadership in the House stepped up its efforts Monday to defend the federal government's marriage law, which is already under attack or implicated in as many as 10 lawsuits.
"When Congress passed every one of the 1,100 statutes affected by DOMA's definition, the Congress that was passing that statute had in mind the traditional definition," he said.
Mr. Clement said rationale behind the traditional marriage definition approved overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by President Clinton was "all it has ever purported to be" — a definitional provision.