Posted on 03/28/2013 5:13:34 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Seriously: of all editorial writers at the nation's major newspapers, could the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart be the least conversant with the Constitution? Back in August, we caught Capehart admitting to his unfamiliarity with Enumerated Powers Clause.
On today's Morning Joe, Capehart's Constitutional confusion was on display again. Discussing the Supreme Court's possible overturning of DOMA, Capehart complained that it looked like the Court was headed toward doing so not in reliance on equal protection, but on the basis of states' rights, which Capehart called "a legal technicality." Tenth Amendment much, Mr. Capehart?
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The Tenth Amendment: it’s in there, Jonathan. Ping to Today show list.
Capehart has been nothing more than a Gay Rights Activist for a long time. Anytime some kind of Gay issue surfaces, he pops up on MSNBC and pens a column in the WAPO bashing anybody or anything that opposes Gay Marriage or related Gay issues.
Capehart is the expert on male on male sodomy so he should know.
Sure, the libs on the court will throw out DOMA on states rights and then throw out the CA ref on traditional marriage because its the national SCOTUS that decides marriage laws, not the states.
Typical SCOTUS making it up as they go along.
Roberts should have thrown out that O-care mandate.
Can I ignore the ones I don't like, too?
He’s an openly gay dumbass......MSNBC ONLY HAS DUMBASSES.
I confess to being a VERY binary thinker (black and white). I don’t understand the states rights issue here because, from what I’ve gathered, it is all about FEDERAL taxes and benefits.
Could someone educate me?
That darn Constitution keeps getting in the way of the socialist agenda...
If the turd burglars had more than a handful of brain cells to rub together, they might realize that a return to state powers is the best thing that could happen to them.
Ignorance, in and of itself, is bad enough, but willful ignorance is an even more pernicious distortion and diminution of the truth. It is the tantrum of a disobedient child, it is the denial of plain fact, it is stubborn defiance of all that is right and just in this world.
The world is truly not perfect, never will be, for so long as mankind shall be upon it. But there is a kind of homoestasis, a hewing back to certain parameters of action and behavior, that shapes the past, present and future. Getting too far out of that zone only results in a massive corrective reaction that brings everything back to some sort of evenness and stability. We are currently suffering the effects of a far too great of an overcorrection in the recent past, and the wrong pilots are steering the course.
The very definition of the term “marriage” has undergone a dramatic re-writing in recent years, and now the word is carrying freight it was never meant to bear. The state-sanctioned marriage is a civil contract, and it means something slightly different in different places. But its original purpose was to assure lawful protections for both the spouses and the children of that union. As such, the institution has developed its own code of conduct and management, not applicable to other contractual arrangements. And much more than any other contract, emotion has played a part not normally found in “arms’-length” negotiations. Marriage as a contract occupies a special place in the statutes and ordinances that ordain the conduct of people.
Marriage as a spiritual and religous commitment within the context of organized religion is quite apart from the civil definition, and requires a vastly greater participation on the part of each of the spouses, than is ordinarily defined in the civil codes. No earthly judge can rule on the aspects of this mutual agreement when concluded under the auspices of organized religion, or even of pagan rites which are a declaration before the community of the exclusive nature of the union.
Now if an unconventional combination of individuals so choose to make some similar commitment among themselves, this could be, and has been, covered under various codes that spell out the terms and conditions of the contract, but whatever this contract is, do not call it marriage. To do so is to pervert and distort the original meaning of marriage, and demean the institution as a whole, as first one exception and another is called in, until the meaning is so diluted it is unrecognizable.
I was listening to some of the SCOTUS arguments and it seemed like one of the lawyers was arguing only the legislature could deal with the issue as they represent the voters who elected them. He seemed to be arguing against the voters deciding issues via propositions (referrendums). What a ridiculous load of crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.