Fourteenth Amendment versus DOMA – Supreme Judicial Activism

It’s time for another installment of Professor H.O. Hell’s Constitutional Lectures You Wish You Didn’t Read.


In this case, we’re covering the relatively recent strikedown of the Defense of Marriage Act by the Supreme Court. One of the cornerstones of the argument against DOMA was that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees rights to all. It’s even sort of true. Sort of. The thing is that it goes only one way. It protects citizens from States interfering in rights granted by the Federal government. It was part of the reforms rammed down the throats of the South after the Civil War (you need to rejoin the Union and we won’t let you unless you agree to these Amendments).

The point here is that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended as a way to stop Jim Crow. As we all know, that failed wonderfully because of judicial activism which ruled that it only applied to the federal government. It’s hard to understand how they kept a straight face while presenting that decision. People think judicial activism is entirely something perpetrated by liberals trying to make the world a better place and forget that many things have plenty of history with “conservative” persons (perhaps stagnant reactionaries would be a better term).

Setting all that aside, the Fourteenth Amendment was the point of this article. I’m not saying that the right to marry shouldn’t be spread evenly (why shouldn’t everyone have the right to suffer equally–ha ha ha), but that the foundation for that should not be sought within the Fourteenth Amendment which says nothing about the federal government giving equal protections. If, on the other hand, you want to know why Extraordinary Rendition is unconstitutional, you can always find it there.


And now that you know, you can’t unknow it.

Professor H.O. Hell

Breaking News: Ted Cruz an Illegal!

Bad news for Ted Cruz supporters. It turns out that the popular candidate (not the populist candidate) for President is not, in fact, a citizen of our great nation. This is a slight problem, because it happens to be a requirement for the job of President. To be specific one must be either a natural born citizen or have been a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. For those of you wondering, I suspect that the meaning of the second half of that requirement is because the Articles of Confederation had been extant at the time and therefore there was something resembling a United States, even if it has little similarity to the home of the free.

Actually, it’s worse than it seems. He’s illegally holding the office of Senator as well, since one must be a citizen of the United States. As he maintains he is a natural born citizen, I doubt he’s ever been naturalized. Fortunately for those of us with some degree of sanity remaining in our souls, to be a citizen, one must be born in the United States or be naturalized and be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It’s a funny old world, but the Fourteenth Amendment does actually set out rules for citizenship.

Does this mean he can’t have been added by Congress (who are given the power to determine the procedure for citizenship)? Not at all. But it does mean that those of us out there who read the Constitution itself instead of our preconceived notions (precious few of us out there and virtually none are the ones who call themselves “originalists”–more on that another time) will find ourselves joyful in knowing that Ted Cruz is on the outs.


Until Next Time,

Professor H.O. Hell

Santorum: Gingrich is right

Hello again folks, the Hounds are out for blood again. As you loyal readers know, we here at rarely let slip the Hounds of Hell. We only let me out of my cage when something particularly egregious happens.


“What brought out the Hounds this time?” you ask? Ah, allow me to enlighten you.


Rick Santorum, in his long established goal of trying to sound like as much of a deluded psychopath as his opponent Newt Gingrich, has decided that the best way to achieve this goal is to agree with Newt on various topics. In this case, Santorum has decided to join Gingrich in flipping the bird at the Supreme Court.


How might this be “flipping the bird”, as your author has stated, you ask? Ah. Well, if you take your history lessons seriously, you’ll recall that the Supreme Court established the Separation of Church and State. The term originated in the courts and Santorum would like to shove the whole kit-and-kaboodle off a cliff.


Santorum seems to be under the impression that when Kennedy said that he didn’t want the President’s religion to concern the public, he meant “government crush religion!” I’m really at a loss here. You see, the point is not that you, as a citizen are not allowed to be religious, or even to let religion influence your daily decisions; the rule is that the government can’t do that.


So, to (thankfully) ex-Senator Santorum (may-you-never-be-Preisdent-of-this/my-country), I offer you our most hearty bras d’honneur: Bite me!


*howls* HoH

Who needs facts?

Not really much to say here, John Kyl of Arizona stated outright that “well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does” is abortions…which is just outright untrue. It’s rather impressive really.


What earns him a place here, though, is that he then said that “it was not intended to be a factual statement.” Then please do not speak at hearings, people are expected to bring facts. Also, quoting a number is a dead giveaway that you mean for people to take your words as fact.


Here’s a statement intended to be factual, Mr. Senator: Bite me.