Pakistan prime minister urges Obama to end drone strikes

1 of 6. U.S. President Barack Obama shakes hands with Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington October 23, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:51pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday urged U.S. President Barack Obama to end drone strikes in Pakistan, touching on a sore subject just as relations between the two countries improve after years of suspicion over Afghanistan and the U.S. counterterrorism fight.

"I ... brought up the issue of drones in our meeting, emphasizing the need for an end to such strikes," Sharif told reporters after meeting with Obama in the Oval Office.

Relations were badly strained following the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden deep inside Pakistan where he was in hiding. But they appear to be on the mend as the United States prepares to pull forces out of Afghanistan in 2014.

The United States has quietly restarted security assistance to Pakistan after freezing aid during the period of soured relations, when Washington frequently voiced complaints about the ties of the Pakistani intelligence service to militant groups active in Afghanistan.

A series of major setbacks in recent years included a 2011 NATO air strike that mistakenly killed Pakistani border guards and another incident that year in which a CIA contractor killed two men on the streets of Lahore.

Obama acknowledged tensions and "misunderstandings" between the two countries. He said he and Sharif had pledged to work together on security issues in ways that "respect Pakistan's sovereignty."

"We committed to working together and making sure that rather than this being a source of tension between our two countries, this can be a source of strength for us working together," Obama said.

Sharif was elected prime minister in June in a historic election that marked Pakistan's first civilian transfer of power after the completion of a full term by a democratically elected government. He is the first Pakistani leader to visit the White House in five years.

"To see a peaceful transition of one democratically elected government to another was an enormous milestone for Pakistan," Obama said.

Much of U.S. security aid to Pakistan is intended to bolster the ability of its military to counter militants in semi-autonomous tribal areas.

For fiscal year 2014, which began on October 1, Obama has requested $1.162 billion from Congress for Pakistan, including $857 million in civilian aid and $305 million in security assistance.

The U.S. use of armed drones to attack suspected militants in Pakistan has long been controversial although the number of incidents has dropped in recent months.

The issue came up again this week when Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused the United States of breaking international law by killing civilians in missile and drone strikes intended for militants in Pakistan and Yemen.

White House spokesman Jay Carney called it "a hard fact of war" that U.S. strikes sometimes result in civilian casualties but said drone strikes do so far less than conventional attacks. The United States takes pains to make sure any such strikes conform to domestic and international law, he said.

(Reporting by Mark Felsenthal; Editing by Jim Loney)

View the original article here

Pakistan prime minister urges Obama to end drone strikes

1 of 6. U.S. President Barack Obama shakes hands with Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington October 23, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:51pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday urged U.S. President Barack Obama to end drone strikes in Pakistan, touching on a sore subject just as relations between the two countries improve after years of suspicion over Afghanistan and the U.S. counterterrorism fight.

"I ... brought up the issue of drones in our meeting, emphasizing the need for an end to such strikes," Sharif told reporters after meeting with Obama in the Oval Office.

Relations were badly strained following the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden deep inside Pakistan where he was in hiding. But they appear to be on the mend as the United States prepares to pull forces out of Afghanistan in 2014.

The United States has quietly restarted security assistance to Pakistan after freezing aid during the period of soured relations, when Washington frequently voiced complaints about the ties of the Pakistani intelligence service to militant groups active in Afghanistan.

A series of major setbacks in recent years included a 2011 NATO air strike that mistakenly killed Pakistani border guards and another incident that year in which a CIA contractor killed two men on the streets of Lahore.

Obama acknowledged tensions and "misunderstandings" between the two countries. He said he and Sharif had pledged to work together on security issues in ways that "respect Pakistan's sovereignty."

"We committed to working together and making sure that rather than this being a source of tension between our two countries, this can be a source of strength for us working together," Obama said.

Sharif was elected prime minister in June in a historic election that marked Pakistan's first civilian transfer of power after the completion of a full term by a democratically elected government. He is the first Pakistani leader to visit the White House in five years.

"To see a peaceful transition of one democratically elected government to another was an enormous milestone for Pakistan," Obama said.

Much of U.S. security aid to Pakistan is intended to bolster the ability of its military to counter militants in semi-autonomous tribal areas.

For fiscal year 2014, which began on October 1, Obama has requested $1.162 billion from Congress for Pakistan, including $857 million in civilian aid and $305 million in security assistance.

The U.S. use of armed drones to attack suspected militants in Pakistan has long been controversial although the number of incidents has dropped in recent months.

The issue came up again this week when Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused the United States of breaking international law by killing civilians in missile and drone strikes intended for militants in Pakistan and Yemen.

White House spokesman Jay Carney called it "a hard fact of war" that U.S. strikes sometimes result in civilian casualties but said drone strikes do so far less than conventional attacks. The United States takes pains to make sure any such strikes conform to domestic and international law, he said.

(Reporting by Mark Felsenthal; Editing by Jim Loney)

View the original article here

Obama: Government shutdown won't delay healthcare exchange launch

By Lewis Krauskopf

Fri Sep 27, 2013 6:21pm EDT

n">(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday that the new state insurance exchanges created by his healthcare reform law will launch as scheduled on Tuesday even if the federal government shuts down due to Republican efforts to defund Obamacare.

The new online health exchanges at the heart of Obama's Affordable Care Act are set to open for enrollment on October 1 after years of political attack, offering subsidized health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. Conservative lawmakers in Congress are pushing to cut out spending for the healthcare law at the threat of shutting down the government on the same day.

"On Tuesday, about 40 million more Americans will be able to finally buy quality affordable healthcare just like anybody else," Obama said in a speech addressing the potential for a shutdown.

"Those marketplaces will be open for business on Tuesday, no matter what, even if there's a government shutdown. That's a done deal."

Obama's statement confirmed speculation that the exchanges would operate regardless of Congress' actions.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department, the branch of the government overseeing the law's implementation, released its contingency plan on Friday in the event of a potential shutdown.

The department's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services branch "would continue large portions of ACA activities," according to a document on its Website.

That includes coordination between the Medicaid program for low-income Americans and the insurance marketplaces. Insurance rate reviews and assessments of what portion of premium revenue insurance companies spend on medical services would also continue.

The document said that certain funding for healthcare reform was mandatory and "not affected by a hiatus in annual appropriations," such as the ACA Mandatory Program Management and the ACA Implementation Fund.

The Medicare program for the elderly would also "continue largely without disruption," in the short term. States would also have funding for Medicaid.

Regarding other HHS agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would continue "minimal support" in the United States and abroad to respond to outbreak investigations, processing lab samples and maintaining an emergency operations center.

The Food and Drug Administration would continue activities to handle emergencies such as high-risk recalls, but "will be unable to support the majority of its food safety, nutrition, and cosmetics activities."

(Reporting by Lewis Krauskopf; Editing by Ken Wills)

View the original article here

Obama Picks Skadden Partner to Help Close Guantanamo

Redirecting. Click Here to view the article

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Turkish PM pushes for US action on Syria in meeting with Obama - CTV News

WASHINGTON -- Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is looking for stepped-up action on Syria as he meets with President Barack Obama at the White House. But the U.S. and Turkey remain far apart on how to handle Syria's bloody civil war.

Erdogan is visiting Washington just days after two car bombs in Turkey killed dozens in the deadliest terrorist attack there in years. Turkish authorities have blamed Syrian intelligence, and Erdogan has been calling for more aggressive steps to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad's government.

But the Obama administration remains reluctant to take the kind of action Turkey would like to see, including establishing a no-fly zone in Syria.

The disagreement was unlikely to spoil a day of pomp for Erdogan, who met with Obama Thursday morning before they were to appear in the Rose Garden at lunchtime for a joint news conference. Erdogan also was being treated to a formal lunch at the State Department with Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry before his return to the White House for a working dinner with the president.

An honour guard also lined the north driveway of the White House as Erdogan arrived by limousine.

The visit comes as Obama struggles with a series of scandals, including the targeting of conservative political groups by the U.S. tax collecting agency, his response to last year's deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, and the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Justice Department as part of a leak investigation. The topics were expected to come up during the news conference.

Despite differences over Syria, Erdogan will welcome the opportunity to showcase his close ties with Obama. He arrives after recently marking 10 years in office as a dominant figure in Turkish politics. As much as Erdogan wants the U.S. to exert greater power in Syria, the Obama administration sees Turkey as a critical broker on a host of issues in the region.

The administration recently negotiated a deal to repair ties between Turkey and Israel, which were severed following a 2010 Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in which eight Turks and a Turkish-American were killed. The administration hopes to see an understanding sealed during Erdogan's visit on compensation for the victims of the raid and their families. The U.S. sees reconciliation between Turkey and Israel as critical as it seeks to revitalize peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

It is also looking for Turkish help in ramping up sanctions on Iran and in cooling ethnic tensions in Iraq. Both Turkey and the U.S. see an opportunity this year to restart talks on the reunification of Cyprus, an issue that is also likely to come up in talks between Obama and Erdogan. Cyprus was split in 1974, when Turkey invaded after a coup by supporters of a union with Greece. A Turkish Cypriot declaration of independence in 1983 is recognized only by Turkey, which maintains 35,000 troops there. Turkey doesn't recognize Cyprus as a sovereign country.

Following the recent terrorist attacks in Turkey, Erdogan and Obama also will look to step up co-operation on counterterrorism.

Finally, the U.S. administration is likely to reassure Erdogan that Turkey will not lose out as the administration seeks a massive free trade deal with the European Union. Obama may also offer praise for Erdogan's initiative to make peace with Kurdish rebels after a nearly 30-year battle.

View the original article here

Months After Newtown, Obama Seeks to Regain Momentum on Gun Control

“The notion that two months or three months after something as horrific as what happened in Newtown happens and we’ve moved on to other things?” Mr. Obama said in remarks at the White House, surrounded by relatives and friends of victims of gun violence, including some from Newtown. “That’s not who we are. That’s not who we are. And I want to make sure every American is listening today.”

The president has just a small window in which to persuade Congress to back a series of gun control measures that will come up for a vote in the Senate early next month. And his remarks, delivered in an impassioned and off-script manner, were aimed at reviving the impetus that gun-control advocates fear they are losing as more time passes since the shootings.

A filibuster threat is growing in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said a ban on certain styles of semiautomatic weapons is virtually assured of defeat. And a senior Republican senator who opposes the president’s efforts, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, is now floating a competing gun bill.

These complications only add to the strain surrounding negotiations over a bipartisan bill that would strengthen the background check system for gun purchases — talks that have so far drawn the support of only one Republican, Mark Kirk of Illinois.

As senators at the heart of those negotiations returned to their home states this week, their staffs continued to try to reach consensus back in Washington. But they have yet to produce anything more than an outline of what legislation might look like.

Mr. Obama’s appearance, from the East Room of the White House, suggested just how delicate the situation had become. Rather than read from teleprompters, he seemed to speak extemporaneously much of the time and expressed irritation in a way that he generally does not. At some moments, he paused and took a breath as if collecting himself and circled back to some of his points for emphasis.

“Shame on us if we’ve forgotten,” he said.“I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

The renewed push by the president, who will travel to Colorado next week to rally support for new gun measures, is just one piece in a broader nationwide effort, timed to coincide with the two-week Congressional recess, by gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s coalition.

At the same time, the National Rifle Association is activating its base, ensuring that Congressional offices and town hall meetings over the next week will be swamped with competing agendas on how to combat gun violence.

“What we face right now is the most dire threat to the association and to our freedom,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an N.R.A. spokesman.

Indeed, gun rights activists are being challenged by a highly coordinated and expensive effort to defeat them, not to mention a galvanized group of voters who were outraged by the Newtown shooting and have pledged to volunteer.

The Brady Campaign this week began a campaign to call and e-mail thousands of supporters, urging them to attend more than 150 Congressional town hall meetings, many in Republican-leaning states where Democrats are up for re-election.

“Basically we’re saying, ‘Drop everything. There’s a town hall tonight,’ ” said Brian Malte, the director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign.

People will be equipped with talking points like poll numbers that show 9 out of 10 Americans support universal background checks, including 7 out of 10 N.R.A. members. And they will be encouraged to ask their senators and representatives direct questions like, “Do you support universal background checks?” Mr. Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said it was convening 120 events across the nation in support of gun measures, including in Columbus, Ohio; Durham, N.C.; and Golden, Colo. The group began a $12 million ad campaign aimed at 15 senators this week.

“Americans want this, and today Americans are making their voices heard,” said the group’s chairman, John Feinblatt.

Michael Cooper contributed reporting from New York, and Elizabeth Maker from Connecticut.

View the original article here

Months After Newtown, Obama Seeks to Regain Momentum on Gun Control

“The notion that two months or three months after something as horrific as what happened in Newtown happens and we’ve moved on to other things?” Mr. Obama said in remarks at the White House, surrounded by relatives and friends of victims of gun violence, including some from Newtown. “That’s not who we are. That’s not who we are. And I want to make sure every American is listening today.”

The president has just a small window in which to persuade Congress to back a series of gun control measures that will come up for a vote in the Senate early next month. And his remarks, delivered in an impassioned and off-script manner, were aimed at reviving the impetus that gun-control advocates fear they are losing as more time passes since the shootings.

A filibuster threat is growing in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said a ban on certain styles of semiautomatic weapons is virtually assured of defeat. And a senior Republican senator who opposes the president’s efforts, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, is now floating a competing gun bill.

These complications only add to the strain surrounding negotiations over a bipartisan bill that would strengthen the background check system for gun purchases — talks that have so far drawn the support of only one Republican, Mark Kirk of Illinois.

As senators at the heart of those negotiations returned to their home states this week, their staffs continued to try to reach consensus back in Washington. But they have yet to produce anything more than an outline of what legislation might look like.

Mr. Obama’s appearance, from the East Room of the White House, suggested just how delicate the situation had become. Rather than read from teleprompters, he seemed to speak extemporaneously much of the time and expressed irritation in a way that he generally does not. At some moments, he paused and took a breath as if collecting himself and circled back to some of his points for emphasis.

“Shame on us if we’ve forgotten,” he said.“I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

The renewed push by the president, who will travel to Colorado next week to rally support for new gun measures, is just one piece in a broader nationwide effort, timed to coincide with the two-week Congressional recess, by gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s coalition.

At the same time, the National Rifle Association is activating its base, ensuring that Congressional offices and town hall meetings over the next week will be swamped with competing agendas on how to combat gun violence.

“What we face right now is the most dire threat to the association and to our freedom,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an N.R.A. spokesman.

Indeed, gun rights activists are being challenged by a highly coordinated and expensive effort to defeat them, not to mention a galvanized group of voters who were outraged by the Newtown shooting and have pledged to volunteer.

The Brady Campaign this week began a campaign to call and e-mail thousands of supporters, urging them to attend more than 150 Congressional town hall meetings, many in Republican-leaning states where Democrats are up for re-election.

“Basically we’re saying, ‘Drop everything. There’s a town hall tonight,’ ” said Brian Malte, the director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign.

People will be equipped with talking points like poll numbers that show 9 out of 10 Americans support universal background checks, including 7 out of 10 N.R.A. members. And they will be encouraged to ask their senators and representatives direct questions like, “Do you support universal background checks?” Mr. Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said it was convening 120 events across the nation in support of gun measures, including in Columbus, Ohio; Durham, N.C.; and Golden, Colo. The group began a $12 million ad campaign aimed at 15 senators this week.

“Americans want this, and today Americans are making their voices heard,” said the group’s chairman, John Feinblatt.

Michael Cooper contributed reporting from New York, and Elizabeth Maker from Connecticut.

View the original article here

Months After Newtown, Obama Seeks to Regain Momentum on Gun Control

“The notion that two months or three months after something as horrific as what happened in Newtown happens and we’ve moved on to other things?” Mr. Obama said in remarks at the White House, surrounded by relatives and friends of victims of gun violence, including some from Newtown. “That’s not who we are. That’s not who we are. And I want to make sure every American is listening today.”

The president has just a small window in which to persuade Congress to back a series of gun control measures that will come up for a vote in the Senate early next month. And his remarks, delivered in an impassioned and off-script manner, were aimed at reviving the impetus that gun-control advocates fear they are losing as more time passes since the shootings.

A filibuster threat is growing in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said a ban on certain styles of semiautomatic weapons is virtually assured of defeat. And a senior Republican senator who opposes the president’s efforts, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, is now floating a competing gun bill.

These complications only add to the strain surrounding negotiations over a bipartisan bill that would strengthen the background check system for gun purchases — talks that have so far drawn the support of only one Republican, Mark Kirk of Illinois.

As senators at the heart of those negotiations returned to their home states this week, their staffs continued to try to reach consensus back in Washington. But they have yet to produce anything more than an outline of what legislation might look like.

Mr. Obama’s appearance, from the East Room of the White House, suggested just how delicate the situation had become. Rather than read from teleprompters, he seemed to speak extemporaneously much of the time and expressed irritation in a way that he generally does not. At some moments, he paused and took a breath as if collecting himself and circled back to some of his points for emphasis.

“Shame on us if we’ve forgotten,” he said.“I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

The renewed push by the president, who will travel to Colorado next week to rally support for new gun measures, is just one piece in a broader nationwide effort, timed to coincide with the two-week Congressional recess, by gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s coalition.

At the same time, the National Rifle Association is activating its base, ensuring that Congressional offices and town hall meetings over the next week will be swamped with competing agendas on how to combat gun violence.

“What we face right now is the most dire threat to the association and to our freedom,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an N.R.A. spokesman.

Indeed, gun rights activists are being challenged by a highly coordinated and expensive effort to defeat them, not to mention a galvanized group of voters who were outraged by the Newtown shooting and have pledged to volunteer.

The Brady Campaign this week began a campaign to call and e-mail thousands of supporters, urging them to attend more than 150 Congressional town hall meetings, many in Republican-leaning states where Democrats are up for re-election.

“Basically we’re saying, ‘Drop everything. There’s a town hall tonight,’ ” said Brian Malte, the director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign.

People will be equipped with talking points like poll numbers that show 9 out of 10 Americans support universal background checks, including 7 out of 10 N.R.A. members. And they will be encouraged to ask their senators and representatives direct questions like, “Do you support universal background checks?” Mr. Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said it was convening 120 events across the nation in support of gun measures, including in Columbus, Ohio; Durham, N.C.; and Golden, Colo. The group began a $12 million ad campaign aimed at 15 senators this week.

“Americans want this, and today Americans are making their voices heard,” said the group’s chairman, John Feinblatt.

Michael Cooper contributed reporting from New York, and Elizabeth Maker from Connecticut.

View the original article here

For Obama, a Tricky Balancing Act in Enforcing Defense of Marriage Act

A debate in the White House broke out. Some of his political advisers thought it made no sense to apply an invalid law. But his lawyers told Mr. Obama he had a constitutional duty to comply until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Providing federal benefits to same-sex couples in defiance of the law, they argued, would provoke a furor in the Republican House and theoretically even risk articles of impeachment.

Two years later, that decision has taken on new prominence after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. accused Mr. Obama from the bench on Wednesday of not having “the courage of his convictions” for continuing to enforce the marriage law even after concluding that it violated constitutional equal protection guarantees. The chief justice’s needling touched a raw nerve at the White House. “Continuing to enforce was a difficult political decision,” said an aide who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, “but the president felt like it was the right legal choice.”

Other presidents have enforced laws that they no longer defended in court, including the first George Bush, whose acting solicitor general, a man named John Roberts, once asked the Supreme Court to overturn an affirmative action program at the Federal Communications Commission.

But the fuss this week underscored the awkward balancing act for Mr. Obama, whose administration refused to refund federal estate taxes to an 83-year-old lesbian even though he thought it was wrong not to.

“I’m sure there are people in our community who would agree with the chief justice that the president should go farther and not enforce” it, said one leader in the fight for same-sex marriage, who declined to be named while the case was pending. But leaders in the fight came to accept the decision “because without enforcement, there’s no means to challenge the law” in court.

The decision to repudiate the Defense of Marriage Act came two years into Mr. Obama’s term. Although the Justice Department had defended it in the past, the courts were being asked to examine the law for discrimination under a tougher standard.

Some at the Justice Department argued that the administration should continue to defend the law. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided the law did not meet the higher standard. He talked the issue through with Mr. Obama, who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and the president agreed. They would no longer defend the law against court challenges.

But administration lawyers researched the matter and concluded that the president should still enforce it while the courts deliberated. Even then, not every lawyer agreed. One Justice Department lawyer thought the administration should refuse to enforce the law as well.

The question comes down to the president’s obligation under Article II of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The meaning of that phrase has been debated at least since 1860, when the attorney general at the time concluded that the president could disregard a law purporting to appoint a government officer because it was unconstitutional.

The debate played out into the next century. After President Woodrow Wilson refused to comply with a law preventing him from removing postmasters without Senate approval, the Supreme Court struck down the statute in 1926 as an encroachment on executive power in a case that was seen as implicitly agreeing that a president is not required to execute unconstitutional laws.

A 1977 opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Jimmy Carter concluded that a president could ignore a statute he considered unconstitutional, depending on the circumstances. A memorandum by the same office in 1994 said the president could do so when the law tried to improperly limit executive power or when it was “probable that the Court would agree with him.”

But when a reasonable argument could be made on the other side, lawyers said, the president should still comply until the courts rendered a definitive verdict. That was what President Bill Clinton did in refusing to defend in court a 1996 law expelling all H.I.V.-positive soldiers from the military even as he said he would enforce it. Congress ultimately repealed the law.

Mr. Obama’s lawyers leaned on that precedent in 2011 as they made their determination on the Defense of Marriage Act.

View the original article here

For Obama, a Tricky Balancing Act in Enforcing Defense of Marriage Act

A debate in the White House broke out. Some of his political advisers thought it made no sense to apply an invalid law. But his lawyers told Mr. Obama he had a constitutional duty to comply until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Providing federal benefits to same-sex couples in defiance of the law, they argued, would provoke a furor in the Republican House and theoretically even risk articles of impeachment.

Two years later, that decision has taken on new prominence after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. accused Mr. Obama from the bench on Wednesday of not having “the courage of his convictions” for continuing to enforce the marriage law even after concluding that it violated constitutional equal protection guarantees. The chief justice’s needling touched a raw nerve at the White House. “Continuing to enforce was a difficult political decision,” said an aide who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, “but the president felt like it was the right legal choice.”

Other presidents have enforced laws that they no longer defended in court, including the first George Bush, whose acting solicitor general, a man named John Roberts, once asked the Supreme Court to overturn an affirmative action program at the Federal Communications Commission.

But the fuss this week underscored the awkward balancing act for Mr. Obama, whose administration refused to refund federal estate taxes to an 83-year-old lesbian even though he thought it was wrong not to.

“I’m sure there are people in our community who would agree with the chief justice that the president should go farther and not enforce” it, said one leader in the fight for same-sex marriage, who declined to be named while the case was pending. But leaders in the fight came to accept the decision “because without enforcement, there’s no means to challenge the law” in court.

The decision to repudiate the Defense of Marriage Act came two years into Mr. Obama’s term. Although the Justice Department had defended it in the past, the courts were being asked to examine the law for discrimination under a tougher standard.

Some at the Justice Department argued that the administration should continue to defend the law. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided the law did not meet the higher standard. He talked the issue through with Mr. Obama, who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and the president agreed. They would no longer defend the law against court challenges.

But administration lawyers researched the matter and concluded that the president should still enforce it while the courts deliberated. Even then, not every lawyer agreed. One Justice Department lawyer thought the administration should refuse to enforce the law as well.

The question comes down to the president’s obligation under Article II of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The meaning of that phrase has been debated at least since 1860, when the attorney general at the time concluded that the president could disregard a law purporting to appoint a government officer because it was unconstitutional.

The debate played out into the next century. After President Woodrow Wilson refused to comply with a law preventing him from removing postmasters without Senate approval, the Supreme Court struck down the statute in 1926 as an encroachment on executive power in a case that was seen as implicitly agreeing that a president is not required to execute unconstitutional laws.

A 1977 opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President Jimmy Carter concluded that a president could ignore a statute he considered unconstitutional, depending on the circumstances. A memorandum by the same office in 1994 said the president could do so when the law tried to improperly limit executive power or when it was “probable that the Court would agree with him.”

But when a reasonable argument could be made on the other side, lawyers said, the president should still comply until the courts rendered a definitive verdict. That was what President Bill Clinton did in refusing to defend in court a 1996 law expelling all H.I.V.-positive soldiers from the military even as he said he would enforce it. Congress ultimately repealed the law.

Mr. Obama’s lawyers leaned on that precedent in 2011 as they made their determination on the Defense of Marriage Act.

View the original article here