Editorial: Leaders Must Support Laws I Like, Never Mind the Constitution
Lacking any useful legal knowledge has never stopped the unnamed Courier editor from spewing frothy opinions on how the rule of law ought to work, and he spews mightily in Sunday's editorial about the administration altering policy on suits against the comically titled Defense of Marriage Act. It's sort of pitiful to watch him try to spin his purely emotional issue on a legalistic argument. It would be the ol' peashooter-in-a-gunfight problem, but he hasn't even got any peas.
Here's what happened. A little old widow lady got a bill for over 300,000 clams in taxes for which she'd be exempt if she'd been married to a man. She sued. I would too. The Attorney General marched into the Oval Office and reported, "Mr President, if we go to court against this little old lady, we'll waste a whole lot of money, we're guaranteed to lose, and when the Supreme Court strikes the law down the whole country will come unhinged. Maybe we should drop it." The President, being the pragmatic moderate technocrat that he is, said, "Sounds like we don't have much choice about that," and started drafting a pragmatic, technocratic speech about it. No change in the law, no fireworks. Someone else will have to spend the money to get that same Supreme Court judgment, like all those churchgoers who imagine being gay or not is important, including the Family Research Council.
Despite the reams of precedent for this kind of determination, the editor thinks it's the first time it's ever happened, and only because those Democrats are all secretly gay and want the editor and his wife to be gay, too. And his dog. Here, Fido ....
A clue for the editor to chew on: Equal Protection -- It's Not Just for Straight White Men Anymore.
6 comments:
The core issue here is that the income tax is inherently intrusive into American lives. A free nation wouldn't have this. Since you're a dem I would think you would understand the human rights factor in this.
The repubs have no right telling anyone who and who cannot get married, the only right they have is in their churches. Government shouldn't be marrying people. I don't expect the government to run my church, neither do I expect it to run my personal life.
I agree that the government has no place in the relationship business.
Yes, taxes are inherently a responsibility, and fair taxes are responsibly shared according to ability. Perhaps you'd like to give an example of a successful "free nation" without taxes.
PS I'm not a "dem."
Taxes are not inherently a responsibility. Being a responsible neighbor is. Taking care of the poor is. But taxes are not. Taxes are theft.
Just because something hasn't existed before (of course, it has in limited instances) doesn't mean it can never exist. Where would we be if we never tried to push ourselves to greater individual responsibilities?
A person is not inherently free if they are enslaved by their government, even if that government is a "good" master.
If you are not a dem then what are you?
Ah, I get it. You're a Trekkie.
What am I? I'm free of fear.
I have no fear, hence the reason I believe in trying new things and have no fear of living without the "state". On the other hand you fear everything around (humanity) and wish for a "father" to protect you.
Gosh, d, your deep insight into my character and your amazing powers of persuasion leave me utterly defeated.
I've changed my mind. I look forward to breaking my chains and following your lead in creating this amazing personal-responsibility 'panarchy.' I'm not quite as brave as you, of course, so let me know when you've broken through the enslaving cordon of troops at Sky Harbor and established yourself in Somalia. I'll be along presently.
Post a Comment