Doesn’t this article violate all rules of prudence?
The Canadian free press espousing views on the U.S. Constitution?
Simple: look at the template that the War on Drugs uses.
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the prohibition of substances at the federal level, for if it did then the Eighteenth amendment would not have been needed to authorize prohibition. (And, in fact, if you look at the cases upon which the precedence
upon which the War on Drugs is justified you will find Prohibition cases… which all ought to be legal nullity, as the Twenty-First amendment repealed the Eighteenth.)
Unless I’ve got the wires crossed, I’d like to find out more about how the Exceptions clause is being used to defend gay marriage.
Also, as mentioned in related threads, pro-gay, PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC) are also wrongly being used to protect gay marriage. The problem with using the EPC to argue in favor of gay marriage is the following.
Both the Supreme Court and John Bingham, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of the 14A, had clarified that 14A applies only those privileges and immunities that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect to the states.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
In other words, subjectively reading rights into the EPC as pro-gay activist judges have been doing to argue that state laws banning constitutionally unprotected gay rights are unconstitutional is the wrong way to interpret the EPC. Activist judges actually have no constitutionally enumerated gay rights to apply to the states that have banned gay marriage.