|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: April 29, 2015, 06:48:16 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 4-29-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Daily Digest
Apr. 29, 2015
THE FOUNDATION
“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.” —John Adams, Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1812
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Same-Sex Marriage Decision Hinges on Justice Kennedy1
In the oral arguments over the Supreme Court case that may institute same-sex marriage nationwide, the Court appeared to split along its usual lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy once again becoming the justice on which the whole decision rests. Like many, Hot Air’s Allahpundit2 saw Justice Kennedy sympathetic to the arguments made by the pro-same-sex-marriage lobby. Allahpundit believes the Court will rule against traditional marriage; the only question now is by what vote. Nevertheless, some justices were cautious. For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman. Then, the Netherlands changed its definition of marriage in 2001. “You’re not seeking to join the institution,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.” He added, “One of the things that’s truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society.” The plaintiffs' attorneys have been practicing for months3, running moot courts and rehearsing responses to Justice Antonin Scalia’s style of questioning. The goal, The New York Times reported, is not just win, but “win big.” If SCOTUS rules in their favor, then they already have. More…4
National Guard, Curfew Quell Second Night of Baltimore Unrest5
The rioting Monday night in Baltimore left 19 buildings and 144 vehicles burned, 20 police officers injured and 235 people arrested. But what we saw by dawn on Wednesday is that Tuesday’s violence was subdued. Two thousand National Guard members and 400 state troopers enforced a 10 p.m. city-wide curfew. Baltimore was hesitant at first to crack down on the initial stages of unrest because many of the unruly were youth, but then the violence evolved. “When we deployed our officers yesterday, we were deploying for a high school event,” Baltimore PD spokesman Capt. Eric Kowalcyzk6 said. “I don’t think there’s anyone that would expect us to deploy with automatic weapons and armored vehicles for 13-, 14- and 15-year olds.”
Meanwhile, about 50 protesters were demonstrating in Ferguson, Missouri, last night when a man was shot in the lower leg7. While it’s not clear if the shooting is connected to the demonstrations, police threatened to use “chemical munitions” to clear the crowd. Later, a group set fire to trashcans and a portable toilet. Even after all this time, violence still lingers in the St. Louis suburb. However, Barack Obama wasn’t about to say the riots are due to a malformed relationship between cops and citizens. No, for him, the problem is Republicans. He said at a press conference yesterday8, “I’m under no illusion that out of this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities … But if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could.” Leftists believe the answer to everything is more money. More…9
Obama: Congress Is Just Afraid of a Little Globalization10
In pushing for a free-trade agreement with countries arrayed around the Pacific Ocean, Barack Obama has managed to enter the rare political situation of gaining opponents in both Democrat and Republican parties11. Democrats, led by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, bray that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will hurt the middle class. Republicans, well, they have a right to be suspicious, because the administration that “led” the U.S. economy on its slowest recovery to date wants to negotiate a trade deal that will have huge economic implications. Furthermore, Obama is seeking approval for this treaty in a simple yes-no vote, a move that speeds up the negotiation process, but one that also cheapens Congress' role in negotiating treaties. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Obama called the skeptics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership scared of a little globalization. After all, if the U.S. does nothing, then China will establish its trade agreements and earn influence over that corner of the globe. “What we can’t do, though, is withdraw,” Obama said. “There has been a confluence of anti-global engagement from both elements of the right and elements of the left that I think [is] a big mistake.” There is a reason why the Constitution grants Congress the power to approve treaties, and the argument that we’re running out of time is no excuse to trust the judgment of one man. More…12
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Why Is SCOTUS Even Considering Same-Sex Marriage?13
By John J. Bastiat
Since the very definition of marriage is up for grabs at the U.S. Supreme Court this week — SCOTUS entertained oral arguments Tuesday on a number of cases consolidated under the central issue of the un-constitutionality of states' ability to deny gay marriage — we thought this an appropriate point to interject reason into the debate, strengthened by an understanding of history — Constitutional history. Let’s start with the basics: The Constitution of the United States has nothing to say about marriage, “gay” or otherwise. What does that mean?
Well, if you know nothing about civics, it means nothing. Unfortunately, that’s the take the religiously zealous supporters of same-sex marriage are trying to foist off on the Supremes this week. Their approach, of course, doesn’t admit to this, or even begin to touch on the truly core issue — Federalism — for the same reason abortionist supporters of Roe v. Wade did not: They would otherwise lose. Let’s walk through this Matrix together, Neo.
The Constitution is the foundational legal document governing our nation. For almost 200 years it served as the backbone behind the body of laws under which the lowliest individual to the U.S. President operated. All of that changed with the Progressive Movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, FDR’s New Deal and a host of other progressive assaults on the concept of the Rule of Law. Wiser-than-the-rest-of-us progressives rejected this idea in favor of the arrogation that some people (read: them) are better suited to rule than others (read: you), and accordingly pushed to make the Constitution a “living, breathing document” (read: changeable to suit progressives' needs). The practical upshot of this “breathing” is that Rule of Law is all but a dead letter in our nation. But we digress.
Since the progressives' constitutional onslaught, the model formerly known as “federalism” has died yet another — virtual, if not actual — death. The Constitution originally gave power to the federal government to make and enforce certain, very particular laws across the land. These so-called “enumerated” powers were so called because they were very limited in scope, though unlimited within the span of that scope. Such laws were applicable to the entirety of the United States and evolved from the previous federal power failures of the former bedrock document, the Articles of Confederation. For example, the power to regulate commerce among the states — a power itself abused over the past century by an overly-ambitious SCOTUS interpretation of the term “interstate commerce” — is specifically granted to Congress under Article I of the Constitution. Likewise, the power to enter treaties — another power very recently abused, since the current office holder ignores the prerequisite Senate consent to such power (“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties… ”) — is specifically granted to the president under Article II.
However, the rest of governmental power is vested within the states. This structural component was codified under the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “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.” |
