Posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:07 AM PDT by AZRepublican
Uh, I'm not supporting a marriage constitutional amendment.
I am simply looking at how the Constitution is written.
To explain to the citizens what they meant when they were writing the document.
Well, they should have therefore added that to the text. It wouldn't have been that hard to add one sentence to Article V. But they didn't.
Secondly the Constitution in 1791 was amended to make it crystal clear what powers the states did have. The 10th Amendment
Of course, the original Constitution was an infringement on some of the powers the states had under the Articles of Confederation. So your basic premise doesn't stand up to that basic fact - the states agreed to more limited powers when they ratified the Constitution in the first place.
Ah, if only the sworn upholders and defenders of our Constitution had protected states' rights all these years, if only the balance of power had been practiced by impeaching rogue judges long ago, we wouldn't be here now. Reparations now will be difficult and will require real courage. And real men.
Yes and as Federalist 45 points out those powers were specific. Every other power, including issues of marriage, abortion, end of life, etc. belonged to the states. Is Madison not clear enough? Especially considering he attended the whole Convention and is considered the father to the document, I believe he knew exactly what the intent was and what it covered.
And, once again, the feds in Article V provide a means to alter powers by amending the Constitution. And did not limit amendments to limiting federal powers. So your argument falls apart both on two fronts - by the plain text of Article V, and by the ratification of the Constitution itself, which was an increase of federal powers at the expense of the states under the Articles of Confederation.
Haven't you noticed that since our government and education system began promoting homosexuality as the preferable form of sexual expression, their numbers, wealth and influence has grown, to the point that the powers that be, dance to their tune.
Yes they do. However as #45 points out, one can't reasonably state the Constitution would have been amended for such issues as the document wouldn't apply to the states (for the most part) in the first place. From the understanding of the Framers, why would you amend a federal document to change a state law? That is in effect what you are doing. You wouldn't. One would first have to make the Constitution apply to the states (done through incorporation by activist judges from 1898-1937).
We're talking original intent here, not after the document was made null and void. Frankly, considering our current form of government, the Constitution of these United States is not much more than a worthless piece of paper. Historical value yes, but as for applying to the government? Forget it. Forget judges ignoring it, politicians ignore it every day.
It is their leaders who claim the privileges of "racehood." --of a group apart from the rest of us and hostile to Christian tradition.
Then why did they even bother passing a new Constitution anyway? They could have just kept the Articles if that were the case.
Once again, your argument falls apart because the Constitution itself gave the fedgov powers at the expense of states - and it was the states that ratified the Constitution in the first place. So if the states could give some of their powers to the fedgov by ratifying the Constitution, why would they in turn not be able to give another power to the fedgov by ratifying an amendment?
Their influence has definitely grown but I don't know about their wealth or numbers. I think they would like to say that their numbers are a constant and they are just coming out. If it could be shown that more and more are going gay, the gays will have to back peddle on what their agenda really is. What is very striking to me is how quickly the gay movement went from total acceptance in Holywood and Universities, no surprise there, to total acceptance in Corporate america. From there the next battles seem to be public schools and churches and the church battle front is marriage. If this was a game of Risk, the board is starting to get pretty pink.
As more states rush to adopt their own amendments, I think an acceptable amendment to the United States Constitution for this would be to say that the current "full faith and credit" clause does not apply to state laws on marriage. That should go a long way to defuse the matter, since the direct impact is that a State Supreme Court like in Massachusetts can no longer declare what marriage is for the rest of the country. Take away the "full faith and credit" and the other states are not obligated to recognize the marriages in Massachusetts.
It does create another can of worms, but different worms. What it does do, however, is sidestep the issue of regulating marriage in the Constitution.
-PJ
No, because certain aspects of the federal government were not addressed under the original articles (namely taxation, commerce, etc). Eventually it would have broken down
So if the states could give some of their powers to the fedgov by ratifying the Constitution, why would they in turn not be able to give another power to the fedgov by ratifying an amendment?
But again from the Framers' understanding why would they want to do such a thing? Madison's statement was to alleviate the concerns of many within the states. The federal government's powers would be limited, the states for the most part would not.
Now from a federal supremacist point of view, one would believe the states would want to release powers to the states. However, that was not necessarily the popular opinion of the time in all corners.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
For a fact.
Yes that's the problem. And the
best proposal I have read on this
issue is found here:
NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Ward Farnsworth is Professor of Law and Class of 1960 Scholar at the Boston University School of Law.
Ornstein: 2/7/05
...the bitterness in Washington over judicial appointments
...got me thinking about rethinking lifetime appointments. And the more I thought about them, the more I saw merit in change—in moving federal judgeships, at least at the appeals court and Supreme Court level, to single 15 year terms.
The fact is that lifetime tenure has created a powerful temptation to presidents to pick young ideologues, who can change the balance on the bench and leverage that president's impact for many decades after he leaves office. Lifetime tenure thereby ratchets up the stakes of each appointment, giving opposition parties more incentive to block as many presidential nominees as possible, whatever their ideology, to leave more lifetime slots for a future president of their own party. If 15-year terms were staggered over time for Supreme Court positions, it would take away the variability that allows some presidents to fill several vacancies in one term, while other occupants of the Oval Office can go two terms without filling any.
I've read other suggestions that 18 or 20 year limits in
federal judicial offices would be beneficial to the nation.
The author is a homosexual.
"me me me me" hedonistic mindset.
marriage is not about recreational sex. Marriage is not about love. There is no love test under the law.
This author is just disembling.
The constitution DOES control marriage if you take into account full faith and credit, taxation, and IMMIGRATION.
The federal issue of immigration has LONG established the guidlines of legally acceptable marriage on the federal level.
The FEDERAL government has required states to adopt one man and one woman for state hood.
This author is completly ignorant.
Sounds good to me. Rather than a single 15 year term though it seems that a single 12 year term would be more in sync with Presidential rotations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.