This week, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and kicked California's Proposition 8, defining "marriage" as between one man and one woman, back down to the lower courts. Many DOMA opponents have celebrated while some supporters have seen this as a minor setback in their quest to have the word "marriage" ultimately defined.
The most troubling aspect of this ruling for me isn't whether or not SCOTUS ruled correctly in a social sense, but was the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution just tossed out the window?
Amendment Ten of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people. (Emphasis added)
In other words, the powers of governance not specifically outlined within the Constitutionas being reserved for the federal government are given to individual states and the citizens within the borders of those states.
The Founding Fathers, I believe, could not have seen the massive power-grab in Washington that we have witnessed in recent years. That is why they sought to explicitly outline what matters the federal government has jurisdiction over. Unfortunately, the bastardization of their intentions has resulted in the feds legislating not only from Capitol Hill but giving powers to the federal courts to legislate from the bench.
Thirteen states have legalized same-sex marriage as of 2013, with many states having bans on same-sex marriage based on either state statute or state constitution. Has this week's SCOTUS ruling put those bans in danger in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment? It could be argued that the bans in effect in those states with prohibitions of same-sex marriage are unconsitutional with the precedent being this week's ruling as citation. Would that not take away the rights given to the states and their people to invoke sovereignty under the the Tenth Amendment in matters not related to the federal government?
Legislation has been proposed within the House of Representatives in the past that would require Congress to specify exactly which enumerated power they are invoking when considering enacting any law. The Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) was introduced in January of 2009 by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) in an effort to keep the feds from overreaching their power concerning states and their citizens. When Congress doesn't agree with a law passed within a state's legislature and approved by the citizens, they wrest control from the states and enact federal legislation overturning the wishes of the states and citizens. How does that NOT violate the Tenth Amendment?
In the workplace, there are rules specifically outlined to ensure that employees stay within the confines of what the company expects. Violate those rules, and you are asked to explain your actions. Asking Congress to cite what authority they have under the Constitution to pass a certain piece of legislation is not unreasonable. It would leave a lot less ambiguity for SCOTUS to sort out in the court system and keep a lot of matters that should be left to the states out of the federal courts
The EPA is an idea whose time is, in my opinion, overdue. Unfortunately, Congress will never require themselves to stay within the specific powers given under the Constitution.
Anyone looking for cookware on clearance needs only to go as far as their local Walmart or Sears. Both companies announced that they will no longer be carrying Paula Deen cookware over her past use of a racial slur some 30 years ago. Also jumping the Deen ship are Home Depot, JC Penney, Novo Nordisk, and Caesars Entertainment Corporation. This is not looking good for Paula as she, according to CNN Money online, has hired a professional crisis-management firm.
While I'm not familiar with the official stance of Sears, I am familiar with the official stance of Walmart. Giving only a blanket statement that stores will only carry the once must-have item du jour among those who care about having the latest of everything until the product is sold out, everyone knows why Paula and companies have parted ways.
In the past few days, a co-worker of mine who works in that department has had customers say, "You mean you're still going to carry her product after what she said?" The answer was that until told otherwise, yes. Well, otherwise came. Product availability is limited to the current stock and any orders already placed. No future orders will be processed.
Maybe it's just me, but isn't the bottom line in business turning a profit? A lot of people are ready to boycott any store that carries her products, but there are many people who really don't give a rat's behind about the whole debacle and just want quality products at a reasonable price. Do you cave to the boycott crowd or sell the product and make some money? As one who believes in free market capitalism, I know what I would do. But that's just me.
The media didn't get this wound up over Martha Stewart's crimes. She was
only convicted of insider trading. Now had she used a racial slur...
No one can predict just how far this train is going to run before FINALLY pulling into the station, but you can rest assured that the vilification is far from over.
First off, let me premise this post with this caveat: I DO NOT condone the use of the "N" word by anyone regardless of color. I believe that when one is relegated to the use of said word, they have, more often than not, run out of intelligent responses to a debate and fall back on Neanderthal tactics. Just my opinion.
Earlier this week, Paula Deen, the Southern belle with the nasally voice who touted Southern cuisine, was fired from The Food Network for her past use of that ugly word. Reports today are that Smithfield Pork, who had hired Deen as a spokesman, has pooped in Paula's grits and is in the market for someone to take over endorsements.
Deen admitted having used the one word that will bring blood to an instant boil in the past. While I would expect something more from a seemingly intelligent business woman, my question is simple: Why are some past mistakes completely excoriated by the left and put into the "unforgivable" category while others are not?
During the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, Mark Fuhrman, a detective with the LAPD, was severely discredited in his testimony because he had, in the past, used the racial slur. O.J. "I won't stop looking for the real killer." Simpson walked. Evidently, the perpetrator of those crimes was on a golf course somewhere because O.J. played a LOT of golf shortly thereafter. Why was the past use of the "n" word by Fuhrman so relevant to the testimony of the facts of the case at hand?
Those who agree with the liberal template of utopia seem to get a pass. Many rap records have used the same word as have many black youth to each other with no repercussions. Why? I mean, if it's wrong for one person to use it, wouldn't common sense dictate that it's wrong across the board?
Liberals are so quick to ostracize anyone who violates their code of conduct. Former U.S. Senator Trent Lott was pressured to step down due to his remarks of the late Strom Thurmond's failed presidential candidacy. Thurmond, an old Southern Dixiecrat who was elected to Congress during segregation, served 48 years in Congress. Yet, the late Robert Byrd, a senator from West Virginia, was held up as a pillar of the Democratic Party for many years despite Byrd's tenure as a member and high-ranking official within his local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. I guess when you have a "D" after your name, the libs can forgive anything.
Liberal forgiveness doesn't extend only to matters concerning race. For many years, the liberal mindset has been that child molesters in prison can be rehabilitated and deserve a second chance. They have implored that released sex offenders not have the crimes they were convicted of held against them when reentering society. I submit that the second chance those scumbags get is to do the very thing that landed them in jail to begin with. Yet, those who claim to have everyone's civil rights at heart can't get past someone else's past transgressions when those sins offend the left. Can yinz say "hypocrisy"? I knew ya could.
Forgiveness is a matter left to the transgressor and their higher power, whatever that may be. For many, including myself, the words "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." ring true, and, as long as Paula and God are squared away, that's all that matters.
Hey libs!! The past is gone and it ain't coming back. Examine your own past mistakes and be thankful that someone was willing to forgive you before passing judgment. We all make mistakes and strive to move forward. Can yinz? *crickets*
Well, there he goes again. Dear Mr. Obama has once again put his metatarsals firmly between his molars during a recent trip to Belfast, Northern Ireland. Who's surprised by this?? Not moi.
According to Newsmax.com, our president called for an end to Catholic schools in a country with a history of religious fighting citing:
"If towns remain divided, if Catholics have their schools and
buildings, and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one
another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages
division. It discourages cooperation."
In other words, Mr. Obama has concluded that the Catholic Church is "divisive" by maintaining schools for the education of those who choose to send their children for an education within the private sector instead of a public system that has to answer to government. I submit that school vouchers would afford many more people the option, but that is a subject for another day.
While an argument can be made on both sides either for or against the Catholic Church and their educational system, why hasn't he called the many madrasas (islamic schools or seminaries) around the world as divisive? After all, their mission is to provide an education with an emphasis on islam. How is that not divisive under your definition, Mr. President? Is it because you attended a madrasa as a child living in Indonesia? Inquiring minds are curious.
Didn't anyone screen this comment before his speech? I mean, common sense dictates that you don't go into Northern Ireland and blame one side for all of the violence that occurred over many years. It is insensitivity at its finest.
Mr. President, the only education you seem to approve of is one similar to yours under Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers.