Jane Corwin needs to actually read the Constitution

Jane Corwin, the recently-designated Republican candidate to succeed disgraced Rep. Chris Lee (R-26) from western NY, issued a statement criticizing the Obama administration's decision about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Attorney-General Holder issued a memo saying that part of DOMA is unconstitutional, and that his office would no longer defend against lawsuits that challenge that section.

Corwin said

“The President of the United States swore an oath to uphold the laws of our great country and as a member of the Executive Branch he needs to enforce those laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act. It is the Supreme Court’s job to consider the constitutionality of the law and the President should not usurp the authority of the Supreme Court.

However, the Presidential oath does not say anything about upholding the law. As specified in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, the oath is

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That is exactly what President Obama and his administration are doing--defending the Constitution. Corwin is also wrong that he is usurping the authority of the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the job of considering the constitutionality of laws. It is the job of all three branches of government. (In fact, the question of whether the courts had this power at all was not decided until the landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803.)

Ms. Corwin, I suggest you brush up on your constitutional law before making any more statements about the jobs of the various branches.