Posted on 08/18/2015 11:51:22 AM PDT by conservativejoy
Scott Walker and some others say we should overturn the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling by amending the Constitution. But that's tremendously difficult to do, and frankly, not very likely to happen.
But Ted Cruz has suggested a solution which is quite doable, and very possible to carry out, if he is elected President. Cruz, an experienced Constitutional scholar and former Solicitor General of Texas, has suggested that Congress pass legislation to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts
Forgive me for once again quoting Wikipedia, but it's relatively concise and to the point:
Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."[1]
All this would require is a simple majority vote of the House of Representatives. As for the Senate, if the filibuster rules were changed, a majority vote could pass it there as well. Senate rules can be changed by a majority vote; if a majority of the Senate wants the rules changed, it will be changed. Even if the Senate doesn't have the guts to waive the filibuster rule, there is a second way to do it without changing any rules.
Normally it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, except when it comes to budgetary matters. If the legislation were crafted in a way to state that the budget for the judiciary to decide or enforce rulings related to marriage were being withheld, an argument could be made that it was a budgetary issue that would only require a majority vote of Senators.
Now, I know what you're thinking. First of all, the Republicans would have to be in charge of Congress in 2017 to make that happen. That's true. The next thing you're thinking is that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have no interest in passing this. That's also correct. But it's also irrelevant.
When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, Republicans had the Senate but not the House. In the Senate, do you think the old bulls like Bob Dole and Bob Packwood wanted to lower taxes? Not really. Do you think the Republicans in the House or so-called "moderate" Democrats wanted to lower taxes? Even less likely.
But Reagan when he ran for president campaigned heavily on tax cuts. When he was elected he had a mandate from the people.
The Constitution does not give homosexuals any right to pseudo “marriage” any more than it gives a right to “privacy” and therefore abortion..
Oh, he’s suddenly going to undo 3 generations, 50 years of divorce? Because sodomite pseudomarriage is only the drop of the other shoe.
Thing is I don’t mind gays hooking up. That’s their business. But to call it marriage, not so much. I’m perfectly content when they do a civil union. Trouble is, the legal paperwork says Marriage License. That I have a problem with.
Yes Ted Cruz has the talent and ability to educate the public on what options are available.
Mark Levin and the principles at the COS Project also propose an amendment to the Constitution to allow 3/5’s of states to void, repeal, quash any supreme court ruling.
I heard the same thing about ObamaCare being overturned with a Republican majority in Congress. Color me skeptical.
I hope so, but I fear it’ll take God’s wrath being poured out on us undiluted, with mass death and destruction, before there’s any hope of turning back to Him. People are just too disgusting and too depraved.
But what will they do with the White House Rainbow lights?
A federal judge will strike down any such amendment as unconstitutional, just like they did with Florida’s amendment against gay marriage.
“But what will they do with the White House Rainbow lights?”
I have a suggestion. :)
...heard the same thing about ObamaCare being overturned with a Republican majority in Congress. Color me skeptical...
Lying, two faced politicians account for the rise of Trump.
So let's stick to a plan of President Trump. Senator Cruz with his legal knowledge can work that end of things in the US Senate, helping to write laws that won't be overturned.
Just another promise for republicans to break.
Better to elect Trump and let Trump deal with the economy. While Cruz stays in the Senate and passes the legislation.
Why doesn’t someone submit a bill for “Holy Matrimony?” It protects the church, let’s gays do whatever the heck they want to do without forcing their lifestyle on those who have faith.
Basically the marriage bill that Clinton signed could just have the title changed and resubmitted.
If Congress knocks the federal courts out of the review process on this matter, they won’t have any jurisdiction to strike down anything.
I hope it can be undone. Because as long as this depravity remains in place, the whole country can just go burn in hell for all I care.
I'm not holding my breath, but then again, God is still on His throne, answering prayers and directing affairs.
I'll be damned if I will.
Over the weekend Trump told "Meet the Press" that he "has always hated the concept of abortion."
Yet he once told Howard Stern that if someone asks him, he says he's pro-life "with some exceptions", but it's never been his big issue.
Stern also asked him about his opposition to homo marriage, Trump replied that he wasn't saying he might not change.
He's a lying liberal who is telling conservatives what they want to hear, but he has no core principles or morality.
Cruz is the man.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence on issues like marriage mean that such issues are automatically and uniquely up to the individual states to decide.
But as a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood, 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus the constitutionally unenumerated right to gay “marriage” in this case, pro-gay activist justices got away with legislating the anti-Christian, so-called “right” to gay “marriage” from the bench.
What a one man, one marriage amendment to the Constitution would do is to require all states to recognize only one man, one woman marriages.
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.