An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that question. The Constitution outlines the procedure for impeachment.

The Constitution defines three separate but equal branches of government. The USSC has the final say on whether a law or decision is constitutional. What I'm saying is it sounds to me like you want Congress to have the final say. That would only encourage that problem we have today; which has a whole lot to do with the break down of the system of checks and balances. We're not doing anything to stop Congress from encroaching on other branches, on states rights, or on the rights of the people. Supporting Congress in an effort to terrorize judges isn't a solution. What we need to do is stop Congress from paying states (incl. judiciary) for use of their powers, and restore constitutional order.

The Constitution defines three separate but equal branches of government.

It doesn't say anything about them being equal. And its principal architect, James Madison, said that in republican governments, the legislative branch necessarily predominates.

The USSC has the final say on whether a law or decision is constitutional.

Again, the Constitution doesn't designate anyone as having the final say. The law (including Constitution) is what it is, regardless of what anyone has to say about it. From there, it's just a matter of figuring out what it is. The process isn't always going to be clean and antiseptic, nor should it be.

We're not doing anything to stop Congress from encroaching on other branches, on states rights, or on the rights of the people.

I won't dispute that Congress has been overstepping its bounds in a variety of fields, but you're just flat-out wrong when you say that it's been imposing itself too hard on the judiciary. The federal courts are even more out-of-control than Congress, and in the process they've been waging war on just about everything that's decent. And it is Congress's prerogative under the Constitution to impeach officers - including judges - who abuse their power.

The impeachment power is not an easy stick for Congress to wield. It requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict the impeachee. Keep in mind that in most cases, this would be the same Senate that appointed the judge in the first place. He'll have plenty of allies in that house. So even if we can get Congress to agree in principle that impeachment of judges is a good thing, it's still going to be an uphill battle to actually get a judge convicted.

The author points out that your argument comes too late.

Well, the author is wrong, in first person or third person.

Marriage law has already been reformed, and the legal meaning of marriage and family has been dramatically altered.

Encroachment by the state into the institution of marriage doesn't alter the meaning of marriage one whit. The meaning of the word is clear, the union of one man and one woman.

The fact that you have an axe to grind, albeit a valid axe, with the state vis a vis no fault divorce and its myriad consequences does not mitigate the fact that there are other axes that need grinding which are just as, or more vital, to the survival of the institution.

I find the notion that only "divorced Dads" can lead the battle to preserve the institution of marriage unconvincing.

I have no objection to reining in the power of federal courts under Article III, but we shouldn't be surprised if they deem that unconstitutional.

Would not surprise me in the least but the PBA Act of 2003 will be a good test case for how they will come down on that. Santorum's brief essentially tells SCOTUS that Congress, not the courts, are due defference in finding of fact.

I'm interested in how that shakes out.

As for impeachement:

In principle I'm on your side but my opinion is that impeachment is not poltically doable while an amendment telling the supremes that marriage is not their business and is reserved to the states is doable.

Keep in mind that even an impeachment that doesn't result in a conviction will probably go a long way towards making judges a little more nervous about trashing the law. They would at that point know that their work will be subject to future scrutiny. An amendment, on the other hand, will simply not have that effect on them at all. It will be spun in such a way as to suggest that we're merely correcting a "defect" in the Constitution, which the judges correctly pointed out to us. That, I'm afraid, will simply encourage judges to misbehave further.

You're wrong. You have an opportunity to learn from someone who has studied the situation carefully over many years. If you really want to understand, you should take advantage of it instead of arguing based on too little understanding.

There are people here who can and have taught me something, you're not one of them however.

Happy New Year.

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.