Posted on 12/02/2004 8:30:58 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
It appears that within the next 5-6 years all but 2 to 3 states will ban same-sex marriage. While we need an Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to absolutely make sure that traditional marriage, the union between one man and one woman, cannot be overturned in any state by a district court, an appellate one or even the Supreme Court of the United States, we need a back up plan in case this route fails.
The problem is, is that presently there are too many within the the halls of Congress that are opposed to such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which President Bush supports, that would establish that marriage shall consist of a union only between a man and a woman and which would be binding in every state. Most of those who oppose this amendment are opposed on the grounds that the issue of whether or not to ban same-sex marriage is a states right issue.
Here's the solution that gives everyone what they want.
An Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will have two parts.
1.) The voters in each state will decide whether or not same-sex marriage will be banned within the borders of their respective decide. Majority rule will decide.
2.) Those states which ban same-sex marriage shall not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
What is good about such an amendment is that those who want to protect traditional marriage within the states will have a court-proof way to do so. No court could overturn the will of the people in each state that banned same-sex marraige with such an amendment in place.
As well, those Senators and Representatives who oppose the amendment that President Bush supports, on the grounds that it is a states right issue, would have no excuse not to vote for such a state-friendly amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
An amendment in favor of States' Rights? On all issues, or just this one?
Short and to the point.
Any and all Constitutional amendments are SCOTUS proof.
The strict constructionists believe that the Constitution means what it says and the the original intent helps you understand what it means. (Read Federalist papers etc) They believe that the way to change and keep up to date the document is via the amendment process. They are now proposing an amendment.
The "constitution is putty" party believes that the constitution means whatever they feel it means at any moment and that is how it is kept up to date. What is so interesting is how violently they oppose an amendment. "That is only for bigger issues, that is too dramatic, its wrong to do that.. endless reasonless against an amendment". They try to instill fear at the thought of an amendment and yet they will interpret it to mean anything at all at the drop of a hat.
There is no end to the insanity of the reprobate mind.
All states have agreed what marriage is for 230 years. Only one state court has overturned state law and forced the recognition of gay marriage. With the exception of this judicial fiat, there is no dissent on what marriage is. So why not write it in? We made Utah give up poligamy, is anyone using states rights to demand we allow poligamy?
A Constitution should not address narrow issues like SSM. A broader requirement that "States are not be required to give full faith and credit, within their borders, to matters that while legal within another state are not legal within the state in question" would be much better.
Sorry bout that.
Nope, your second amendment rights are barred in many places. Supreme Court Judges are going outside the constitution when it suits them now.
The ultimate check on the Supreme Court is impeachment and I am sorry to say that they day may come when congress may have be called to do so. The question is whether our weak-willed congress and senate will do better than the last impeachment process in which they participated.
I know that all Cons. Amendments are Scotus proof. I hope others do as well.
Many judges rule on the grounds that certain Amendments, like the 2nd one, are still subject to "regulating".
While a Cons. Amend is theoretically supposed to be SCOTUS proof actual prcatice has shown this to not be the case, unfortunately.
And I, correctly pointed out that NO Constitutional Amendment can be declared Unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
Congress could pass and the states could ratify a Constitutional amendment requiring all citizens to wear green on Tuesdays and SCOTUS couldn't do jack squat about it.
Actually my post should have read that a Cons. Amend. is theoretically supposed to be appelate and district court proof.
...SCOTUS proof as long as we don't let tyrant judges dictate what our law enforcement and military do!....that's why the Second Amendment is such an issue with the Marxists....
What do you think about such an amendment in case the present proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to federally only allow marriage between one man and one woaman fails?
Why don't we just call a constitutional convention?
Portions have - as in the 2nd amendment and will be. And given the chance a liberal SCOTUS would. I can take it to the bank.
Please show me a single SCOTUS ruling that stated a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.
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.