Eugene Delgaudio: Public Advocate At U.S. Supreme Court on DOMA and Prop. 8 Now
Public Advocate Argues Before U.S. Supreme Court
on DOMA and Prop. 8 with Two Friend of the Court Briefs
For Release Monday January 28, 2013
Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio announced today "We are nearing completion of a draft amicus curiae brief on the merits in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case, and hope to have for final review by our internal review committee in the next 24 hours."
Delgaudio after hearing from supporters, and representatives from other organizations said "Public Advocate's plan is to deliver a brief to the printer shortly, for actual filing on Tuesday, January 29.
Then Public Advocate and related friendly support groups can focus completely on the California Prop 8 brief also due on Tuesday of next week.
That brief will be the subject of a separate statement and comment this week (of Jan. 28).
"Dealing with one separate U.S. Supreme Court filing is a daunting task for one small group but two U.S. Supreme Court briefs at the same time can only be accomplished with a top notch legal team and the assistance of many larger organizations and extremely humble talents,God Bless all of the leaders, groups and attorneys involved in this giant affair" says Eugene Delgaudio, President of Public Advocate, who is not an attorney but has been at the forefront of legislative, legal and referendum fights for traditional marriage.
This order of briefing in the DOMA case is quite confusing in that the Court has established two briefing schedules -- one for the merits and one for the standing/jurisdiction issue.
Briefing on standing/jurisdiction actually comes later than the briefing on the merits.
Public Advocate attorneys earlier filed a brief in support of the Supreme Court's granting of review. Its attorneys have done a fair amount of work on both of these briefs and we are making substantial impact on the false representations made by the Homosexual lobby and believe our persuasive reasoning will provide a strong rationale for not destroying traditional marriage and attacking those who support upholding legally conducted referendums to defend marriage.
An example from the friend of the court brief defending DOMA points out the false premise by lower courts in the DOMA case that it was Congress that overstepped its Constitutional powers in protecting marriage:
(Direct quote)"The district court's and the court of appeals' federalism rationale is mistaken. DOMA section 3 is not an unconstitutional federal regulation of marriage binding upon the people of the several states.
Rather, Section 3 is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to enact "necessary and proper" laws as a means for carrying on its enumerated powers vested by the Constitution including, but not limited to, the power to lay and collect taxes ... to provide for the general welfare of the United States."
Public Advocate's friend of the court brief challenges the entire premise of the lower court in negating Congress.
(Direct Quote) "It has been well established for nearly 200 years that the constitutionality of such statutes is governed by the standard laid down in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421 (1819): "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not
prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."
By erroneously positing that the purpose of DOMA Section 3 was to establish a national marriage policy as an end in itself, the courts below poisoned the constitutional well, placing upon DOMA's defenders a burden that they could not discharge no matter what level of scrutiny
was applied. Had the courts below followed the McCulloch rule, they would have been required to
defer to Congress's choice of means - so long as that means is clearly designed to meet a constitutional end and, so long as the means adopted is not clearly prohibited by the Constitution."