What if Clinton had vetoed DOMA?

Maybe unlikely because of the political climate. But with it being overturned today, it made me wonder the implications of such a veto.

Firstly, Clinton was leading Dole by 20-plus points when he signed it into law. It's hard to fathom that vetoing the legislation would have eroded his support so badly over the next two months that he would have lost the '96 presidential election. Conversely, though, it could have had an impact on down ticket races, which was important for the Democrats, as they fought to try to win back control of the House and Senate (they didn't, losing two seats in the Senate and only gaining two in the House).

Secondly, it would have almost entirely been symbolic. There was enough support in the Senate to most likely override Clinton's veto and ultimately, it would have become law - but without Clinton's support (something he would go on to tout in the November elections throughout parts of the South).

Still, had he taken that step and vetoed the legislation, what would the consequences have been for his presidency and support for gay rights as a whole? I think it could have bolstered support from the left, which would've potentially given him a bigger victory over Dole (the left was dispirited in '96 to the point where voter turnout was abysmal). Does it ultimately change anything? Eh, that's a harder question to answer. But for Clinton personally, it would have certainly endeared him to a community and more importantly, shown him as someone who has conviction (something I think has been questionable about the Clinton administration).

To expand on this - what if Clinton did a pocket veto? Would that have been more damaging for his presidential bid? It would have certainly been a bigger story, the president taking a stance on an issue overwhelmingly supported by the Congress and (at the time) the American people - but what ramifications would it have had all around?

Had Clinton done the pocket veto, would Congress ultimately advance a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and would it have passed? Had it passed, and been ratified, would that make it easier for the Supreme Court to strike down on merits and potentially legalizing gay marriage entirely (err, or not considering they can't strike down an amendment ... maybe interpret it differently)?

Would this have hurt Democrats in 2000? We saw how it impacted the election in 2004 (namely in places like Ohio), so, it's possible gay rights would've proven more an issue in that election than it ultimately was. Could it have advanced the process a bit with a sitting president (a popular one at that) coming out against a divisive bill?

Probably questions that can't be answered because I don't think Clinton would have ever vetoed the bill (even if it had come up in '97 as opposed to '96). But if he did, his image, and credibility, on this issue would be pretty vast, don't you think? I mean, DOMA and DADT were Clinton era policies and they morphed into some of the biggest anti-gay policies of the 21st Century (in terms of total blowback). Had DOMA been vetoed, especially a pocket veto, where is the gay rights movement today? Is Clinton a one-termer?

Just spitballing on this historic day.
 
Last edited:
The one thing the Supreme Court can't strike down is a constitutional amendment.

I looked it up and there is a lot of ambiguity toward this. Here is what I found:

If a new amendment to the constitution is enacted, the Supreme Court might interpret the new amendment to invalidate an old amendment.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that includes amendments. More recent amendments should control over the original constitution and earlier amendments.

The other answers also overlook that while the Supreme Court cannot invalidate any part of the constitution, the Supreme Court can interpret provisions of the constitution in such a way as to largely eliminate the constitutional protection. For example, while the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it is interpreted in such a way that the bearing of arms is often a crime for which a person can be convicted and sentenced.

I don't know what that would mean, if anything, to an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage, however.
 
I looked it up and there is a lot of ambiguity toward this. Here is what I found:



I don't know what that would mean, if anything, to an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage, however.

But like with the 21st to the 18th, an Amendment can be written to invalidate the one(s) before it.
 
But like with the 21st to the 18th, an Amendment can be written to invalidate the one(s) before it.

Right. I knew that. Of course, it would have to go through the same process and even in today's world, that would still seem highly unlikely (especially with so many Republican-led legislatures).

So, I guess the question is: If DOMA didn't pass, say Clinton pocket vetoed it, and the Republicans did what he said he feared they would (advance an amendment), would it have been ratified?
 
Top