Posted on 07/14/2004 1:42:44 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Didn't do much for GUN RIGHTS.....What makes them think it will do anything for marriage?.....
I really don't think another amendment would matter!
Why don't we pass a Constitutional Amendment that says that the government should be restrained by the existing Constitution??
Yeah...but at least political speech is safe, right?
Anyone who states that a constitutional amendment is not needed is just plain wrong or intentionally lying.
thanks for the article.
Are you kidding?......
Constantly...
No, just a spiritual revival. Everybody on FR and other conservative sites need to pray everyday, and ask God to pour out his Spirit on our country. It will change everything, and make the wicked repent, or flee the country. Anyone who thinks the solution begins with man, and not with God, is living the Democratic party lie, no matter what they call themselves.
I think it is necessary to amend the Constitution to limit and define the appellate powers of Article III courts.
It is a foolish waste of time to fight a five-year battle to ban so-called "marriages" between members of the same sex when the courts will just be right back with another outrage as soon as that amendment passes.
We should save our energy for a single, comprehensive amendment which would forbid the use of language in the preamble "blessings of Liberty", "general welfare" as the substantive basis for ruling State laws unconstitutional.
Once the term marriage can be defined by each state the homosexual community will have their foot in the door to securing every right and priviledge that is assigned to heterosexual couples. They will demand it and they will win in the courts. This will speed the moral decline of this nation and weaken us as a whole. BEWARE, pandora's box is being opened and there will be no closing it.
We could call it Amendment #10. I don't think that number is currently being used....
</sarcasm>
We should ax "penumbras" and "foriegn laws" while we are at it.....
Sad, isn't it? Some folks, even some conservatives, refuse to recognize the fact that the Federal government is one of enumerated powers.
Consider this example.
In FL homosexuals are prohibited from adopting children.
They have lost twice at the state SC and once at the federal level before the 11th with the USSC denying review.
The homosexuals are now left to try and get the all republican legislature to change the law. In fact the head of the family law section of the florida bar said she would be working for that. (florida attorneys can't make money from a homosexual partner's adoption of a natural offspring or hijack children from foster care based adoptions.)
A constitutional amendment will put the public policy and the legislative intent solidly discouraging homosexuality. Its absense now is to the advantage of the anti-family crowd because they can point to its absence.
The courts have failed because the ONLY source of lawyers for staffing the courts is leftist law schools with leftist law professors. All the gate keepers for judges are leftist based, ABA ATLA etc.
In short better to have an not need, than need and not have.
This is only true if we view it the context of there being nothing we can do about it.
However, the Founders wisely said , and I paraphrase here, that when the Government no longer represents the concerns and attitudes of the People, that a change in Government can be made. The DemocRats consistantly discount that, figuring that by the time we get fed up to that point, they will have snatched all our firearms and we would be left helpless.
Of course, the 'assault' weapons ban expires this September. I can't wait!
we don't need to pass an amendment to protect marriage. We need to pass an amendment to protect society from individual out of control judges legislating from the bench. We need a Constitutional amendment with the equivelant of the California ballot initiative provision. Any court ruling (or new law from some looney legislative trickery) on a controversial issue can be put to a vote in the next election if enough valid signatures are gathered. And the citzen's vote will be the final word on the topic.
We need to return power to the CITZENS and take it away from our would be masters. Now understand, this is dangerous. It means that the majority can be tyranical if the right demagog comes along. It's happened before. We will inevitably go too far in this type of movement. But that's the nature of the ebb and flow of events. If the pendulum only swings one way there is no movement. The mechanism merely freezes in place.
Amen, brother!
Article III needs to be amended to clarify that the words of the Federal Constitution cannot be used to draft laws in response to pleadings in an Article III court. The language of the Constitution is a restraint on Federal power, not a grant of power.
Allowing legislatures to review Court decisions is dangerous. I would settle for an Amendment that prohibited Federal appellate review of any State law pertaining to domestic relations and that also prohibited the use of the language in the Preamble as a basis for a substantive decision.
I was sort of hoping that Congressman Billybob, who knows something of these matters, would draft the amendment.
Marriage has managed to survive for many millennia. A few 21st gay activists are not going to hurt marriage.
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.