Cons. Amend's & The Courts BOTH Go By Majority Rule. Voters Should Decide On Gay "Marriage", Etc...

December 22, 2004

[Eastbound]

Meant to ping you to # 20.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

No, I am not advocating a gov't by voter initiative.

If our Founding Fathers were striving to avoid voter initiative, and Constitutional Amendments are a type of voter initiative, then our founding fathers wouldn't have placed within the U.S. Constitutional framework the right of the citizens to demand from their Representatives Constitutional Amendments from time-to-time.

Since we have a provision for Constitutional Amendments, placed there by our founding fathers, we can see that Constitutional Amendments aren't a type of voter initiative.

As well, if having a Constitutional Amendment where the voters of each state could vote on banning same-sex marriage, or abortion within their respective states were a type of voter initiative, then I am certain that the Founding Fathers would have clearly spelled out that Constitutional Amendments could not be construed in such a fashion.

In the case of things such as abortion, and same-sex marriage, which Constitutionally were never meant to be Federal issues, it may very well be that a Constitutional Amendment is the only thing that keeps same-sex marriage from being rammed down the throats of the majority who don't want it, by SCOTUS majority rule tyranny.

Furthermore, A Constitutional Amendment may end up being the way that the abortion issue is sent back to the states, where it belongs.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

I do agree with you that the courts should have their power seriously curtailed, and not just in the area you are talking about.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Since we have a provision for Constitutional Amendments, placed there by our founding fathers, we can see that Constitutional Amendments aren't a type of voter initiative.

The way you are proposing to use them, they most certainly are.

[Eastbound]

It's going to be difficult to start rolling things back. But if we could at least remove the lynch pin that holds the load we have been straining under for a long time . . . the ability for the states to recall their U.S. senators. The popular vote for U.S. senators killed us dead. Unless that happens, I see no great change toward restoration -- just more promises, words and tokens and business as usual from administration to administration.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

No.

If the way that I propose using it was a type of voter initiative, then our Founding Fathers would most certainly have spelled out that they could not be construed in such a fashion.

The Founding Fathers did not say specifically how Constitutional Amendments could or could not be construed, only that Constitutional Amendments had to have a certain amount of Congressional support, a signature by the President, and ratification by 3/4ths of the states.

Beyond that, they left it up to "We the People."


BTW, 1.)Should the states have to allow same-sex marriage?

2.) Should SCOTUS have the last say-so on same-sex marriage?

3.) Do you support same-sex marriage?

I would appreciate a reply to all three questions. Not answering will only speak volumes.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Excellent idea. Finding a way to recall U.S. Senators more easily. Doing that would really help.

I will look into it.

[Ed Current]

Why not also have a Cons. Amendment which would send the issue of abortion back to the states, where it belongs? Why not put both Amend's into one?

If they must amend the Constitution, then this is the way to do it!

[Eastbound]

I don't think we can do it without an amendment to reverse the 17th. That's the difficulty. Without official state representation in the Senate, we have no control over what Congress does. Either House. It may SEEM like we do, but we don't.

It's easier for Citizens of the state to control the state legislators (who at one time elected U.S. senators) than it is for the people to control congress directly. We've had mob rule for a long time. People are so used to it, they will continue to submit.

[gidget7]

I would be more for an amendment that would limit judges in their ability to "make laws" instead of strict reading of the Constitution, which is their job. Legislatures make laws, Judges do not. Any laws judges have made, including MA same sex marriage, are in fact, not valid, and illegal.

[gidget7]

WHile your amendment is quite valid, you mustn't put more than one law into an amendment, or what happened in LA may happen again. They have to defend their amendment, because it also banned civil unions.

It's unfortunate that we are even in a place where we have to ban something, that was never a right to begin with. That is Judicial tyranny. And Judicial tyranny is exactly WHY we need the amendment. So these Judges an't say it's there, when it clearly isn't.

[Eastbound]

Co-incidentally, check this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1306875/posts

[ThinkDifferent]

Leave the Constitution alone. It's already gotten amended too many times.

Agreed. The only amendment I want to see is one that repeals the 16th.

[Eastbound]

"Agreed. The only amendment I want to see is one that repeals the 16th."

And one that repeals the 17th.