Jeb Bush Doesn't Love Anal Sex

A man on a mission like Jeb Bush probably sticks to the missionary position. In a 1994 Miami Herald op-ed, the Jebster went full Rick Santorum on the issue of sodomy.

In the editorial, published in the Miami Herald that summer, Bush drew a parallel between legal protection for gays and the question, "[Should] sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion? My answer is No."

"The statement that the governor must stand up for all people on all matters is just silly," Bush wrote, arguing that government does not defend every Floridian "with equal verve and enthusiasm." He listed a string of examples: "Polluters, pedophiles, pornographers, drunk drivers, and developers without proper permits."

Jeb went on to be a governor that doesn't represent all people equally. That isn't surprising. Bush is attempting to rebrand himself as less homophobic. So far his efforts have been less than stellar.

I'm curious. Does Jeb Bush feel that heterosexual couples should not allowed to legally practice anal sex in their bedrooms? These heterosexual couple are in what Bush and other Republicans would call a traditional marriage. Bush wrote that sodomy doesn't require legal protection.

For the record: the Supreme Court made it clear that anal sex is protected.

The Lawrence v. Texas ruling found that the Texas anti-sodomy law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Short answer: you can't prosecute gay couple for engaging in anal sex and allow straight couple to engage in the same sexual activity.

Laws like this happen when elected leaders feel they can pick and choose what laws they will enforce. Jeb Bush is such an elected official. Bush would later sign Terri's Law. The Florida Supreme Court found it unconstitutional on the ground that Bush and the Florida legislature illegally overruled the judicial branch.

Bush's 1994 op-ed revealed a man who will only enforce the laws that agree with his worldview.

Lawmakers Won on Florida Supreme Court Decision

I don't have a great deal of knowledge about Florida law on legislative privilege. I have no reason to doubt that the 1st District Court of Appeal was upholding the law by protecting members of the Florida legislature from testifying on redistricting. I still would have liked to hear members of the legislature speak on-the-record about the redistricting process. From the decision.

"We are confident that respondents will be able to make their case that the plan was drawn with improper intent -- if, indeed, that was what happened -- with the evidence in the legislative record and their experts’ analysis of the plan and its underlying demographic data," wrote Judge T. Kent Wetherell, who was joined in the majority by Judge Scott Makar.

I don't believe that members of the Florida legislature should be hauled into court every time a group or a citizen has a disagreement on legislation. These elective officials would always be in court. I would like to see the legislature testify on matters as important as redistricting. The question is how can courts make that distinction. Does Florida law even give the courts that much leeway?

Judge Lewis' decision in the 1st District Court of Appeal did not touch upon testimony from the legislature. Lewis refused to dismissed the case because Sec. of State Ken Detzner argued that the Florida Supreme Court has executive jurisdiction over challenges to redistricting plans. Lewis noted that the argument wasn't true.

The problem with this argument is it flies it the face of the case law. In the 40 plus years this method has been in the Florida Constitution, and despite the several opinions on redistricting, including the two most recent opinions in 2012, the Florida Supreme Court has never held that it has executive judisdiction over over challenges to legislative redistricting plans. To the contrary, it has repeatedly stated that it was limited to a "facial" review and that consideration of the more fact intensive "as-applied" claims were "better suited for a court of competent judisdiction where there is an opportunity to present evidence and witness testimony and where the court has the ability to make factual findings based on the evidence presented."

THe Florida Supreme Court isn't designed to hear hours of witness testimony. That is why Detzner appealed the 1st District Court of Appeaal ruling. Lewis was more than willing to hear legislators and staffers speak on the redistricting process. The good news for the Legue of Women Voters is the Florida Supreme Court hasn't dismissed the case. As of now, the obvious winners from the Florida Supreme Court ruling is REpublican lawmakers and Democrats with gerrymandered districts.

More From the Marco Rubio GQ Interview

Peter Schorsch spotted this comment from the Marco Rubio interview.

GQ: Who’s your best friend?

Marco Rubio: My wife. We talk every day.

GQ: Besides your wife.

Marco Rubio: [South Carolina Senator and Tea Party favorite] Jim DeMint. He’s a great source of wisdom as a person who’s had to make decisions that have made him unpopular in his own party. Jeb Bush is another guy I admire for his ability to analyze issues and call them for what they are.

DeMint is a source of wisdom? I remember Treasury Secretary having to give DeMint an economics 101 lesson on how the debt ceiling works. From Geithner's letter to DeMint.

In your letter, you suggest that the debt limit should not be raised, and instead that federal debt be "capped" at the current limit. You further propose that after the government's borrowing authority is exhausted in August, the United States should for some indefinate period pay only the interest on its debt, while stopping or delaying payment of a broad swath of other commitments the the country has made under the law.

I have expressed my concerns about this idea before, but I will restate them to be clear: this "prioritization" proposal advocates a radical and deeply irresponsible departure from the commitments by Presidents of both parties, throughout American history, to honor all of the commitments our Nation has made.

The debt limit applies to past decisions of Congress. Increasing the debt limit is necessary to allow the United States to honor obligations previously authorized and appropiated by Congress.

DeMint doesn't realize that he is advocating that the federal government default. Under the Consitution, the federal government must pay its debts. Furthermore, DeMint doesn't know that the debt ceiling involves past spending approved by DeMint and other members of Congress. This is Rubio's source of wisdom.

Section 4 of the 14th amendment makes clear that debt shall be paid.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

DeMint and Rubio are both economic illiterates. No wonder they bound so well.

Occupy Orlando Banned by Questionable Law

Mayor Teresa Jacobs has approved a law especially made for Occupy Orlando. The resolution forbids "occupy" from using Orange County Administration Center, as a protesting and camping area. The language of the bill isn't designed for any other citizens except Occupy Orlando. I fail to see how the resolution does not violate the 14th amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Resolution -County Admin Center(1)

Treasury Strikes Down 14th Amendment Option

Treasury Department General Counsel George Madison laughably tells the New York Times editors that Sec. Tim Geithner never said that Section 4 of the 14th amendment forbids the the executive branch from paying its debt.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Except that is exactly what Geithner said in the video below. Geithner even bookmarked the 14th amendment with a paperclip.

GEITHNER: "So as a negotiating strategy you say: 'If you don't do things my way, I'm going to force the United States to default--not pay the legacy of bills accumulated by my predecessors in Congress.' It's not a credible negotiating strategy, and it's not going to happen."

Madison's letter to the New York Times editors.

To the Editor:

Contrary to Professor Laurence Tribe’s assertion (Op-Ed, July 8), Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit. As Professor Tribe notes, the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress, not the President.

The Secretary has cited the 14th Amendment’s command that “[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned” in support of his strong conviction that Congress has an obligation to ensure we are able to honor the obligations of the United States. Like every previous Secretary of the Treasury who has confronted the question, Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress.

Sincerely,

George W. Madison
General Counsel

The point is America has never had to deal with a Congress willing to default. There is no real legal guideline. Other than the government must pay its debts.

What is illogical of the Jim Demint position is it would actually give the executive branch greater power. The Treasury Department would decide which debts are paid or left unpaid. The government would go into greater debt by missing payments to financial institutions and lose its AAA credit rating. This isn't a conservative position DeMint is proposing. It is anarchy.

Ezra Klein pointed out that the federal government cuts millions of checks every month. Treasury would have to decide who gets paid. Treasury has never had to handle such a workload.

Politically, Geithner and the Obama administration is signaling that they won't play hardball with the Republicans. This should as a surprise to no one.

Terry Kemple On Wrong Side of 14 Amendment

The Tampa City Council will take it's final vote on, if transgender people should be protected from decrimination. On November 5, the Council held a preliminarily on transgender protection. The Council voted unanimously in favor. Longtime Pushing Rope reader (and punching bag) Terry Kemple sent out a mass email claiming the ordinance would violate religious rights.

Please stop this assault on Christian values! Do this whether you live in the city or outside the city. If you don’t, here are just a few of the things that will happen. 1. People who dress like the opposite sex will be allowed into the restroom of the gender they feel like today. 2. Sexual predators will be able to take advantage of the law to go into the other sex’s restroom. 3. Regardless of their religious beliefs, rental property owners will be forced to rent to cross dressers. 4. Regardless of their religious beliefs, business owners will be forced to hire and/or retain cross dressers. 5. These special privileges will be granted because of a person’s aberrant sexual behavior. These are not hypothetical! Example after example exists of this discrimination against people of faith! If the City Council hears a loud voice from the Church they’ll think twice and we may actually defeat this proposal. If they don’t hear from us be ready to lose a few more of the religious freedoms our country was established to protect. Please contact City Council members and ask your Pastor to tell the congregation to contact them as well.

Gay people are sex predators is the oldest lie the Christian Right dish out. Kemple is literally saying that his religious beliefs require him to use Jim Crow-style oppression on transgender people. Kemple wants people to continue to not provide housing or jobs to gay and transgender people. Kemple is arguing discriminatory practices are required forms of religious expression.

To make matters clear: the ordinance does not close down churches or force Mr. Kemple to give up his freedom of expression. The First amendment protects Kemple's speech and religious views. Kemple should read the 14 amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This passage is known as the Equal Protection Clause. the 14 amendment was instrumental in ending the Jim Crow laws. Strauder v. West Virginia allowed blacks to serve on juries. Brown v. Board of Education ended racial segregation in learning institutions. Due process was cited in Lawrence v. Texas. The decision ended Texas' law against same sex sexual intercourse. Christian conservative arguments that gay and transgender rights are not a civil rights issue is not founded in reality.

Since Kemple is sending a mass email out, I thought ask readers to message Kemple on Facebook. Feel free to let Kemple know how you feel about his opposition to the ordinance for transgender protection.

Happy Loving Day

On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's law forbiding white and black couples from marrying was unconstitutional. The decision became known as Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court found that the state of Virgina violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving.

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, [388 U.S. 1, 9] Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

Loving Day celebrates the court's landmark civil rights decision. 16 states, including Florida, had their laws against interracial marriages struck down. Conservatives are still bothered by interracial marriages. Why they must be communists. That is what Lisa Schiffren puked out on The Corner.

But maybe it's not so simple. Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)

Schiffren states she is not a racist. She just wants conservative bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds to do some digging. If Schiffren was a real journalist she would do the research herself. Instead, she sends out a battle cry to conservative bloggers to swiftboat Obama, without any facts. TNR founder William F. Buckley wrote in support of segregation. If TNR doesn't want to be called racists then they should stop writing racist pieces.

Mike Huckabee On Terri Schiavo

Mike Huckabee provides an artful dodge on the Terri Schiavo issue. He wants to a Christian conservative and a federalist.

On governmental intervention in the Terri Schiavo case: “I had no problem with the state getting involved because it’s one of their citizens. but I wasn’t sure how the federal government had a role in all that.”

Skeptical social conservatives will read that as Huckabee would let laws get in the way of standing by principle. That is giving Huckabee too much credit. Huckabee has no regard for Terri's Law being illegal. The Florida Supreme Court ruled Terri's Law overstepped the separation of powers.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

The cornerstone of American democracy known as separation of powers
recognizes three separate branches of government—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—each with its own powers and responsibilities. In Florida, the constitutional doctrine has been expressly codified in article II, section 3 of the
Florida Constitution, which not only divides state government into three branches
but also expressly prohibits one branch from exercising the powers of the other two
branches:

Branches of Government.--The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

“This Court . . . has traditionally applied a strict separation of powers doctrine,”
State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345, 353 (Fla. 2000), and has explained that this doctrine “encompasses two fundamental prohibitions. The first is that no branch may encroach upon the powers of another. The second is that no branch may delegate to another branch its constitutionally assigned power.” Chiles v. Children
A, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1991) (citation omitted).
The circuit court found that chapter 2003-418 violates both of these
prohibitions, and we address each separately below. Our standard of review is de
novo. See Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 2001)
(stating that a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment posing a pure
question of law is subject to de novo review).

The Florida Supreme Court failed to factor that Terri's Law was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. All the laws must be applied to cititzens equally. Florida law provides "life-prolonging procedures may be withheld" if a vegetative patient if the guardian, the physician and medical ethics committee if it is in the best interest of the patient. Bush and the legislature made a law strickly to benefit the wishes of Schiavo's parents. The Supreme Court rightfully refused to hear the case.

I understand that Huckabee is trying to pander for votes. What a presidential candidates say matters. Huckabee's comments give a framework into the policy decisions he will make. Huckabee comes off as clueless.