Posted on 03/01/2004 5:30:19 PM PST by swilhelm73
I'm still ambivalent about the FMA, but I'm confused by one of the main arguments of its opponents. I keep hearing that it's terrible to "change" or "tinker" with the Constitution. I'm sympathetic, but the gist of these arguments makes it sound like the Constitution currently has a fixed meaning. I wish! In fact, the folks fretting over changing the Constitution are largely -- though not entirely -- the same people who celebrate the pernicious doctrine of a "living Constitution." There are conservative opponents of the FMA who are consistent in their opposition to both an amendment judicial activism.
Which brings me to my confusion.
What I don't understand is why it's a great thing for unaccountable judges to change the meaning of the Constitution without a public debate while it is some form of tyranny for the House, Senate and fifty states to debate the issue over the course of months or years under the glaring spotlight of the media.
Before you answer that an amendment is more permanent, let me pre-emptively say: Not so fast. Amendments can be, and have been, repealed or superceded. Meanwhile, I'm hardly convinced that decades of activist jurisprudence could be rolled back -- and I'm certainly not persuaded that it could be done more quickly than the repeal of a Constitutional amendment. For example, tell me exactly what could be done under our regime to reverse the Supreme Court's banning of sodomy laws under Lawrence. I'm against sodomy laws, but I don't think they're necessarily unconstitutional. In effect, the Supreme Court amended the constitution just last year and the pro-gay marriage folks cheered.
Of course, there are other arguments against an FMA, but particularly since so many advocates of gay marriage openly celebrated the flagrantly illegal weddings in San Francisco and elsewhere as well as the flagrantly activist re-writing (i.e. "tinkering" "changing" etc) of the Mass. State constitution, it's increasingly difficult to take their arguments as good faith efforts. Indeed, my guess is if there was hope it passing we'd be hearing how we need an FMA to require all states to recognize gay marriages, the sanctity of the Constitution notwithstanding.
You want an amendment that declares our government has the power to dictate the 'rules' about marriage?
Sure...or do you feel that the people thru their elected officials should have no say in the matter? Polygamy? Incestual marriage?
States can reasonably regulate such issues by using 'compelling interest' doctrine. I see no compelling reason to regulate private sex acts between willing adults.
___________________________________
The Fathers foresaw plenty even if only in the abstract, they couldn't have imagined all these judges who are hostile to the constitution.
But they did.. They wrote in checks & balances on the judicial system that aren't being used for political reasons.. -- You want to change that balance by amendment? - I see a dangerous precedent.
Allowing juducial activists to ignore laws because they have the power to trump law and redefine society is the dangerous thing. Where is the "check & balance" in San Francisco where the law is being ignored today?
They will come..
I see no shame in using constitutional law ( the amendment process ) to right the wrongs.
Its not a matter of shame. It's the principle of abiding by our constitution as written.
______________________________________
I even expect that they would have felt the 2nd amendment was enough of a deterrent to judicial tyranny and would be shaking their heads and covering their faces if they could see what we have allowed this country to become.
A majority in this country want more gun control.. Are you willing to see them amend our constitution to reach that goal?
They are already banning the hell out of guns without amendments ( or repealing of the 2nd )
Of course they are, and if you're willing to allow precedent for majority rule amendments, banning anything will be possible.
but that aside, there is no constitutional right for some guy to marry his father. Judges have forced the need to amend.
Cute comeback, but no cigar. Marriage is a religious institution with civil law riders.. Lets keep it that way, and out of our constitution.
It's time to amend with a vengeance.
Such 'vengeance' can backfire, imo. ---
If the car is on fire, a backfire is of little concern.
Our constitution is not "on fire". Our political process is, and the politicans responsible should be at the stake.
Amending the Constitution usually takes close to ten years, while the courts can pump out thousands of decisions per year. The Judiciary must be restrained. The only Constitutional amendment needed is one prohibiting the Judiciary from overturning laws. This is risky, as it was over 200 years ago, as it puts governance back into the hands of elected officials. Most of the current elected officials want no part of actual governance.
If Bush can't get the Constitution amended by November, his base will sit out the election!
/sarcasm....
During these ten years, one or more States may recognize same sex marriages.
Then, we would be looking at passing an Amendment that would possibly nullify hundreds, if not thousands, of Constitutionally legal marriages.
It is after all, up to the States individually to decide on who they will issue marriage licenses to.
This is the reason why the same-sex marriage lobby is sitting (mostly) quietly and watching us put all our eggs in the Amendment basket.
Yes, the political process is on fire and the way to put out the fire is with the constitutionally available process of amending. It is a better option than to use the 2nd amendment to put out the fire.
The constitution did not cause this problem. -- We've agreed that politics did.
Changing our constitution in attempting to solve our political problems can only endanger our own liberties.
You seem unable/unwilling to understand that we must change our politics.
Is it because of a vested interest?
Amending the constitution would certainly "change our politics".
Only to endanger our own liberties. Bad trade.
As far as "vested interest"...I guess I do have an interest in preserving the rule of law...in that I'm a member of society.
We all are. We are also sworn to support and honor our constitution, not to change it at whim.
You seem unwilling to allow for the people to protect themselves and their society legally and constitutionally in favor of having lawless judges redefine society as they see fit.
Silly charge. I've been posting here for years lobbying for constitutional restoration, not "redefinition".. You want to 'redefine' with an amendmment, not me.
Is it because of a vested interest?
You bet.. It's in my own vested interest to protect & defend.
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.