Replies

My objection is that amending the Constitution involves a tacit admission that the judges had the correct interpretation of the Constitution prior to amendment. The implication will be that every bad ruling they make is now to be considered completely valid unless we amend the Constitution to change it.

I see your point, but it is no longer sufficient. Ordinary citizens need to take control of the Constitution away from the priesthood of the courts. First we ned to preempt the courts with a constitutional amendment giving only the state legislatures the power to define marriage in each state and to allow states not to recognize "gay marriages recorded in other states. Second, we need an amendment giving an alternate method of removing federal judges. In 215 years since the first Congress, only a handful of judges has ever been impeached and convicted. Congress doesn't even bother getting rid of judges that violate their oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." We have judges who cite foreign court decisions to rule US law unconstitutional. If the states had a way to remove federal judges independent of the impeachment/conviction route through Congress, it would do much to restore the power of state government with respect to the federal government.

""..a tacit admission that the judges had the correct interpretation of the Constitution prior to amendment.""

Not at all. It is a statement that the judges GOT IT WRONG. You don't make sacrifices at the temple when there is a tiger at the city gates.

Judges make wrong decisions all the time. It is the whole premise of appeals courts. The amendment process is there to also deal with judges who make wrong decisions.

My objections to the first idea are the same that I've mentioned in regard to the FMA. As to the second, if Congress had the political will to pass an amendment for such sweeping structural changes, it would also have the political will to impeach and convict activist judges.

Keep in mind also that the states effectively have the power to ignore judicial rulings of this sort. They're just afraid to use it. But they can, easily. If the courts try to force the issue, I highly doubt the executive branch will try to back them up. And this just may come to pass if federal courts try to order other states to accept gay marriages contracted in Massachusetts. If they disobey, that will be the beginning of the end of judicial tyranny. But this amendment idea will give them an out. They shouldn't have an out.