I am confused as all get-out by the analysis of the DOMA decision. I fully understand that only Section 3 was in question. However, I also know that the court (once standing is found—which it indirectly was) can also rule on the law and not just the section (e.g. The Roe v. Wade decision stretched substantially further than the concerns of the initial case). The specific wording of the decision references DOMA and not just Section 3. The syllabus specifically states that “DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.” It does not state “section 3 of DOMA...” This can be contrasted with the wording of the syllabus of the Voting Rights ACT decision (Shelby County v. Holder), in which the syllabus specifically states: “Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.” Reference to the section is the standard when a section is being overturned, rather than the act itself. Furthermore, in Justice Kennedy’s opinion he states “The federal statute is invalid” and “the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” Compare this with Chief Justice Roberts’ wording in the Shelby County case, in which he states specifically they "declare Section 4 unconstitutional," and specifies that other sections are intact. This tact is not used in either the majority opinion with regard to Section 2, nor in Roberts’ dissent which specifies the limitations of the ruling (to not finding prohibitions on gay marriage as unconstitutional). So WTF? Is DOMA overturned (as written) or just Section 3 (as the media is analyzing)?
Posted on: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:40:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015