Ah, that over-worked equal protection clause, again.
Like inter-racial marriage, abortion, and so much else, they want gay marriage protected not only from the people but from future action by even the federal legislature, as well as from any state or inferior government.
See this.
Anyway, bound by the constitution to see that the laws are faithfully executed, does this seem quite proper for a president careful of his oath?
And when the shoe is on the other foot what will liberals and Democrats say?
Meanwhile, I doubt that even the most candid, honest, and clear-sighted conservative court would dare overturn Loving.
And how refuse this, really, without doing so?
We have never had an honest constitutional jurisprudence.
The balderdash began with John Marshall.
Anyway, bound by the constitution to see that the laws are faithfully executed, does this seem quite proper for a president careful of his oath?
And when the shoe is on the other foot what will liberals and Democrats say?
Meanwhile, I doubt that even the most candid, honest, and clear-sighted conservative court would dare overturn Loving.
And how refuse this, really, without doing so?
We have never had an honest constitutional jurisprudence.
The balderdash began with John Marshall.
No comments:
Post a Comment