Some of my conservative friends lament the fact that I am a daily reader of Pravda on the Pot... er, the Washington Post. But aside from the "Know thine enemy" theory, and I.F. Stone's famous comment that "What makes The Washington Post a great paper is the fact that you never know on what page you'll find the Page One story," the Post is an endlessly entertaining journal.
Take today's tertiary editorial, for instance. Entitled "Running Against Gays," it bemoans the fact that protecting the institution of marriage from the radical homosexual agenda and the linguistically-challenged is "picking on gays and lesbians." Never mind that the fight was "picked" by partisans for the radical homosexual agenda, or the other factually dubious assertions. I was fascinated by the penultimate sentence, which asks "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?" The editorial then asserts that "The question answer itself."
What a stupid "argument."
But you can play "The WaPo Game," too!
All you need to do is recall a ruling of the imperial Federal (or State) judiciary, and then ask the question.
Let's play together!
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), finds a heretofore unknown right to abortion on demand in the Constitution. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?" Or for that matter, many more centuries of the Common law?
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), strikes down what Justice Potter Stewart (dissenting) calls "an uncommonly silly" law against selling contraceptives to married couples. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?"
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), strikes down laws criminalizing homosexual (and heterosexual) sodomy. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?" To say nothing of the norms of 5000 years of civilized society.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), strikes down segregation laws. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting [58] years of constitutional norms (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) ("separate but equal" is constitutionally permissible))?" And arguably, nearly 200 years of the constitutional norm of institutionalized racism. (Well, OK, I'll grant you that one).
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), strikes down the "legislative veto," by which one House of the Congress could reverse the actions of an administrative agency. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?" OK, actually, about fifty years of congressional/administrative practice.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), upholds limits on free speech in the political process. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?"
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), striking down organized prayers in the government schools. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting [184] years of constitutional norms?"
C'mon! You can play, too!
