[RightthinkinAmerican]

How about we just start locking up activist judges who make their own laws? If the current law was enforced, there would be no gay marriages taking place. It's anarchy, and I don't think the anarchists really want it as bad as they think. It would be very ugly for them, at least in ny little corner of the midwest.

[DMZFrank]

Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.

The marriage amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[squarebarb]

Somewhere else somebody posted an article on a constitutional amendment to rein in the judiciary, limit SCOTUS to 10 years, judges electable...I* think. It sounded great to me. I have finally decided that the FMA is indeed a bad idea, that the energy and work should go into the above 'limit the judiciary' amendment.

[TeleStraightShooter]

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.

It's called the Exceptions Clause in the USC, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2.

To summarize, the Courts draw their power from Congress;
all congress has to do is remove an issue {such as who can marry} from federal -or- state court jurisdiction.
All it takes is passing an bill into law.

[therut]

Liberals lie and conservatives stick to their ideology. Liberals will use the constitution anyway they want if it is for their end goal.. Alan Dersowitz was on Wolf Blitzer yesterday lamenting amending the constitution in a way that would restrict rights. But he is a guy who has come out and admitted the 2nd amendment does protect an individual right and then states that the constitution needs to be ammended to change that fact!!!!

[tpaine]

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.

It's basic principles are indeed 'fixed', in the sense that we can't amend away our inalienable rights to life, liberty & property, without voiding our constitutional contract..

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.

Courts are only deciding individual cases, -- thus they aren't really changing the meaning of the constitution.. That's hype from radicals that REALLY want to change the basics [as above], -- imo..

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.

Lawrence upheld our basic right to privacy. Why do you want to 'reverse' such a right?

I'm against sodomy laws, but I don't think they're necessarily unconstitutional.

Public acts of sodomy can be regulated, and are..
Private, consensual sexual acts between adults are none of governments business, as long as criminal laws are not violated.

In effect, the Supreme Court amended the constitution just last year and the pro-gay marriage folks cheered.

Again, you are confusing hype for reality. If our governments ended all marriage related welfare, insurance, & tax benefits, gays wouldn't clamor to get "married".. End of problem.

[Jim_Curtis]

The left has figured out that they can remake the United States to their desires by appointing judges who will ignore the constitution.

The genie is out of the bottle and liberals aren't gonna change their ways, their desires are what motivates them.

It is asinine not to use a weapon to defend yourself on the basis of "gee, I've always avoided using that weapon before".

When there is nothing left of the US that you used to know will you soothe yourself with proud reflections of "well, at least we didn't take the extreme measure of taking the framers up on their inclusion of an amendment process to save ourselves".

We need to fight fire with fire. We need to realize that these are different times that require meaningful action.

The Fathers foresaw plenty even if only in the abstract, they couldn't have imagined all these judges who are hostile to the constitution. I even expect that they would have felt the 2nd amendment was enough of a deterent 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.

It's time to amend with a vengeance.

[RockyMtnMan]

The only reason congress says we need an Amendment is because the supremes support gay marriage. Otherwise they could just pass another "Act" that violates the constitution as congress usually does (guns,drugs,etc).

[gcruse]

The FMA is pabulum to keep the issue from blowing up before the election. No one is his right mind believe three quarters of the states will line up behind an amendment when 40% minimum of the voters are opposed to it.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - HYPOCRITES CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

[Richard Kimball]

The Constitution never granted the Judiciary the power to nullify laws. The Judiciary grabbed that right for itself. Since the authority was not granted, no limits were put on it, and the Federal Judiciary is our most unconstitutional branch of government. I believe their power grab has caused many other problems in government. Congress and the President, now, are freed from having to make tough decisions on governance, and now engage in nothing more than a free for all to see who can promise the most money and special privileges to various constituencies.

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.