Seriously: of all editorial writers at the nation's major newspapers, could the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart be the least conversant with the Constitution? Back in August, we caught Capehart admitting to his unfamiliarity with Enumerated Powers Clause.
On today's Morning Joe, Capehart's Constitutional confusion was on display again. Discussing the Supreme Court's possible overturning of DOMA, Capehart complained that it looked like the Court was headed toward doing so not in reliance on equal protection, but on the basis of states' rights, which Capehart called "a legal technicality." Tenth Amendment much, Mr. Capehart? View the video after the jump.
Not surprising that both public lapses in Capehart's Constitutional comprehension go to the issue of limiting the power of the federal government. For good liberals like Capehart, of course, there rightly should be no limits on what the wise folk of Washington, DC should be able to do.
MIKE BARNICLE: Two big days in a row. Two huge days with the Supremes in Washington. Not Diana Ross, the real Supremes. The DOMA debate, just reading about, would appear that that's done. That they're just going to throw it out, huh?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: It sounds like it, but the interesting thing is it doesn't sound like they're going to throw it out because they think that it's unconstitutional on an equal protection basis. It sounds like if they toss out DOMA, it's because of a legal technicality, because it tramples on states' rights, because the states for the longest time, for ever, they're the ones that set marriage law. With DOMA, federal government swooped down and said this is how marriage will be defined, and did it for the states.