Interesting week … eh ???

Last week the First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned parts of  DOMA.  In short DOMA moved to deny civil rights to a select class of American citizens.  The court spoke only to the right of Congress to step into an area that the states have controlled.  The court did not speak to the rights of any two individuals, or lack thereof, to marry. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/opinion/wolf-doma-ruling/index.html)   The various states have historically directed who may or may not marry.  For instance Florida permits first cousins to marry while Michigan and Texas do not. (http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm ).  Yet both of those states recognize the validity of a marriage preformed here.  Just as Florida recognizes the validity of a marriage preformed in another state.  This is an example of contractual reciprocity, where a valid contract executed in one in state is recognized in another state.  From what I can read the court simply is reinforcing states rights in this vital area.  What I fail to understand is why do we see individuals demanding that the Federal Government step into yet another area that historically has been in the purview of the various states.

Once again, like a cork rushing to the surface, la Donald has popped up asking about birth certificates.  Candidates for office today have little if any control over self styled hangers on.  A campaign has a message or rather a select set of messages the candidates wants to put forward for the public to see.  Campaigns have always managed their message, this is not anything new.  The ultimate in managing the message was the election of Benjamin Harrison in 1888, when he would step out on to his front porch and deliver remarks to a highly controlled audience of supporters and/or newspaper reporters.  After his remarks where delivered the candidate would retreat back into his home.  (http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/bharrison/essays/biog... )  Harrison had absolute control of his message, a control that no modern candidate can achieve.  In our twenty four hour news cycle that type of message control is impossible for any candidate.  Can you picture some nut job putting out whatever and that getting picked up and going viral?  Does a candidate control that?  No certainly not, what the candidate does is implicitly and/or explicitly move away from a hangers on comments.  A candidate is seen as a reflection of his public.  When a candidate accepts the support of an individual, the candidate is seen as publicly accepting the supporters values and sentiments.    

I have to wonder, what is the fastest growing sector for employment up the road in Tally?  Could it be attorneys handling one and or another law suit the state finds itself mired in.  Drug testing of certain select groups has been overturned.  The methodology of voter registration the state mandates has been over ruled.  The effort to selectively void valid contracts between the state and employees mandating select classes of employees to accept lower compensation.  Seems as though we will be seeing a continued selective effort towards disenfranchisement of citizens.  What else?  What’s next?