Letter from member of Harry Reid's church illustrates wide rift

The Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | 8/19/06 | JANE ANN MORRISON

[Past Your Eyes]

Reid is a Mormon? I think there's one too many Ms in that description of him. There's really no need for the second one.

[butternut_squash_bisque]

Do as I say, not as I do?

[george76]

[Obie Wan]

It's called politics,and the Democrats side with every group of losers out there !!!

[NRA2BFree]

"But having sold out your Church, your State and possibly your soul for political power, I will have a hard time supporting you or voting for you in the future, should you attempt to hold on to your seat. Your soul is vacant, and you have lost your moral compass."

He has just described 'almost' every member of the House and Senate! The only thing that should be added is that their greed and lust for money has added to their corruption!!

[GSlob]

"Frankly, I expect better of my fellow saints ..."
By definition, a politician cannot have fellow saints, i.e. be a saint oneself. The only fellowship open to them is that of the sinners, whores and publicans.

[Dacula]

I wish we had Republican party with a backbone and nail these rats for their hipocracy.

[BW2221]

"He said he believes Republicans raised the amendment as a political ploy to help them during the upcoming election season."

Harry Reid is always the first to use any issue for his own political gain. He's also the first for accusing others of doing the same.

[BW2221]

Reid is an active Mormon. But, Kennedy, Kerry and Rudy all claim to be Catholic, yet they're all divorced and adamantly support partial birth abortion.

[tflabo]

Look again to the Reid pic....look who is snoozong in the background...it's Sheets Byrd in ZZZZZZZZZZZ land. Who can blame him when the Dim bulb is at the mike.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"He said he believes Republicans raised the amendment as a political ploy to help them during the upcoming election season.

Political ploy? If people want gay marriage they will vote for it. If they don't they won't.

Why doesn't Reid put on the ballot that Abortion and Gay Rights should be legal.

Let's vote on that.

[Conservative Goddess]

I've never considered Reid or any Democrat to be a paragon of Constitutional virtue....but in refusing to support a Constitutional Amendment, he is, in fact, upholding the ideals of the Founders. Here's an excerpt from Federalist No. 84(apologies for the length, but worth the read), written by Hamilton:

"...It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. ``WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights...."

And the same can be said for an injudicious zeal for a Constitutional Amendment "banning" Gay Marriage. The Federal Government was never supposed to meddle in family affairs or "regulate every species of personal and private concerns." Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction over family affairs....this is the exclusive purview of the states.

The Defense of Marriage Act purports to exempt states from recognizing gay marriages from other states....purports to suspend the operation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I question if that will withstand Constitutional muster, but I am convinced this is just election year theater...written, choreographed and costumed to incite the conservative base, which has been disaffected, disillusioned and disinclined to vote in the upcoming election.

[Obie Wan]

I never said happy people were losers !!!

[Coldwater Creek]

Just too funny!!!!!

[pankot]

It's also called "pandering" for votes.

[tflabo]

Harry Reid....."Mousi Pugilisticus...Nevada Desert Kangaroo Rat...a rodent-like zeal for subversion and destruction" From the book 'Political Zoo'

[tflabo]

Howard concluded: "But having sold out your Church, your State and possibly your soul for political power, I will have a hard time supporting you or voting for you in the future, should you attempt to hold on to your seat. Your soul is vacant, and you have lost your moral compass.">

Wow...quite a stinging rebuke. Ditto this for Jimmah Carter as well.