[Federalist 78]

Federalist No. 81 ``The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judicial power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

Insist that Congress remove federal judical jurisdicton from Defense of Marriage Act /Public Law No: 104-199, 342-67 & 85-14 w/Clinton signature and allow each state to choose, or abstain from sodomy.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Sen. Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, used the exception authority of Article III, 2.2 in order to cut some timber in South Dakota.

Reining In the Court - The New American - July 28, 2003 By simple majority vote, Congress could pass an act denying federal jurisdiction over social issues of any kind, such as abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. This would leave the state legislatures free to enact (or, in most cases, re-enact) laws on those matters reflecting the moral consensus of their constituents. This would leave the well-funded leftist network of legal agitators - the ACLU, et al. - without effective recourse, since they would have no access to their longtime allies in the federal judiciary. Rather than use the judicial system as a detour around representative government, the cultural left would have to contend, on equal terms, in state legislatures.

James Madison, His Legacy: Federalist Papers (FEDERALIST No. 51)

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates

[xzins]

He is correct.

Easiest to have a simple majority vote.

But....the SENATE will turn it into a supermajority of Senators. That is why it MUST be started NOW going into an election year. It would be an awesome way to MAKE Senators stand on the side of angels FOR which of them want to be the one to say "I reject the people's opinion as to what constitute's marriage."

However, Another congress could change it, but with great difficulty.

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[LPM1888]

I doubt that a Constitutional Amendment banning nontraditional marriage will ever pass but even if it does it will be repealed within a generation or two. The younger generations overwhelming accept homosexuality. Banning their marriages will only cause the younger generations to rebel and accelerate their acceptance of homosexuality.

[familyop]

"Two-thirds of the House and Senate must agree on the proposed amendment before submitting it to the 50 states, 38 of which must approve the change before it becomes the supreme law of the land."

38 states already have defense of marriage laws, and the big polls are showing overwhelming support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Our founders put sodomizers to death, and they obviously didn't even imagine that sodomizers would try to legitimize something like marriage between themselves and fight legitimate parents for custody of their children. Our founders would be rallying around this Amendment as we are.

But here's something much more interesting for y'all.

Group formed for gay Libertarians

Outright Libertarians - Issues

Outright Libertarians

Golden Gate Libertarian
Outright Libertarians Support AB205
(California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003)

GayLiberty.org

Ah, heck, just enter "outright libertarians" in a search engine like google.com and follow the gazillion links yourself.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - marriage protection from News Max. Haven't read it yet...

Let me know if anyone wants on or off this ping list - just ping me~

[ellery]

Great article. My $.02 on this issue: this is not an appropriate issue for a Constitutional amendment; any bill Congress passes should not ban gay marriage in every state, but should give states the power not to recognize marriages performed in other states. That way, the whole thing becomes a community standards issue.

[Salvation]

It would be awesome to have 60 or more Republican senators!
Do you think it can happen by 2004? 2008?

[GrandMoM]

Mike Thompson is author of "Preying In School":

How Homosexuals Recruit Your Kids,

1-866-909-2665.

[First_Salute]

There is only one Amendment needed at this time, as follows:

The time limit for the Senate to give its advice and consent on all matters proscribed within the body of this Constitution, is thirty days from the instant of the President of the United States making known his nominations and other submissions for such advice and consent under this Constitution. This time limit shall be in effect immediately upon ratification of this Amendment by ...

(so on and so forth).

[hocndoc]

What I wonder about is the demand by the court that a State legislature write law.

I thought a court could over turn a law, make all pertinent laws null and void, but I didn't know that a court could force a legislature to pass a certain law.

(btw, the Dems in Texas showed us a very powerful tool to obstruct legislation this past summer. )

[MosesKnows]

an overriding majority of Americans to demand a constitutional amendment or something

When did the Constitution become about people? The Constitution is not about people, it is about government.

The overriding majority of Americans would be better served by restricting their demands to the "or something" and leave the Constitution alone.

[inquest]

Just a friendly bump. I noticed the comments had strayed a bit from the main point (which of course is perfectly natural), but I think it's always a great point to keep reemphasizing: The problem isn't with the Constitution; it's with the judges. Time to get out the 2-buh-4's.