A quick lesson in conservatism and responses to judicial activism - a constitutional amendment intended as a "preemptive strike" against judges who may find problems with mere Congressional legislation is NOT a conservative approach. It is a premature application of the pre-emption doctrine to domestic politics.
No one doubts that Congress could pass legislation with the same terms as the DOM Amendment. The argument against this legislation is that some judges will strike it down. Well, it is not very difficult to see the flaws in arguing in favor of an Amendment due to what some judge may do with legislation in the future.
This is theater, nothing more. A waste of your time and money. If the Republicans in Congress were really interested in the issue, they would forget this Amendment stuff and pass a statute. Then, when and if that statute is stricken by a judge and the appeals are taken, it can establish a NEED for a constitutional amendment. As of now, there is no need for an amendment. And it goes to the very nature of conservatism to recognize that we shouldn't do it if we don't need to do it.
I do. It refers to something that is, at present, under control of the several states.
We need a constitutional amendment precisely on account of judicial activism. All takes to declare the DOMA unconstitutional is ONE federal judge. What the FMA does is it leaves the decision about whether or not to allow civil unions in the hands of elected officials. That used to be considered the democratic thing to do.
Oh, you mean like they did in Mass? The only problem is the activist court that struck down the ban ordered an IMMEDIATE overturn of the ban; a fast tracked amemdment to the state constitution will take two years. Condescend elsewhere!