"I disagree. I don't want to rely on the whims of future SCOTUS' to interpret the law. A well-written, unambiguous constitutional amendment will insure that they will not have the power to decide in the future."
In your vision, and it's rather bizarre, it relies on continually passing constitutional amendments to accomplish the same thing as they are ignored by activist courts, instead of just resorting back to the original interpretation ofthem.
By your same 'logic', you'd see another amendment to restore first amendment rights violated by mccain feingold, instead of just bringing a case to the supreme court that overtuns mccain feingold.
Within a couple decades, we'd be saddled with hundreds of amendments that were duplicates of each other in order to get rid of bad laws, instead of doing what has always been done and rectifying the laws with the amendments already there.
Congratulations on one of the most bizarre interpretations of the constitutional process I've ever seen. You've outdone just about every constitutional scholar in the country with your "just add another amendment!" approach.
The founding fathers included an amendment procedure in to the Constitution for a reason. I have never said nor do I favor "continually passing constitutional amendments to accomplish the same thing as they are ignored by activist courts." The process is difficult and should only be used to resolve hard issues. It has been and will be rare. I do favor a constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage if the state courts continue to approve the sanctioning of same sex marriage or perhaps eventually polagamy.
By your same 'logic', you'd see another amendment to restore first amendment rights violated by mccain feingold, instead of just bringing a case to the supreme court that overtuns mccain feingold.
No, I believe it is unconstitutional, but it was passed by the legislative branch. I would concentrate my efforts on overturning the law through the legislative branch. What I do object to is activist courts overturning the legislative branch.
Congratulations on one of the most bizarre interpretations of the constitutional process I've ever seen. You've outdone just about every constitutional scholar in the country with your "just add another amendment!" approach.
Congratulations on setting up a bogus strawman and then knocking it down. You can extrapolte all you want. I believe the only way we can redefine the definition of natural born citizen and the language contained in the 14th Amendment is to have another constitutional amendment. Any law trying to change the current definition will be challenged as being unconstitutional and will be uheld as being unconstitutional by SCOTUS.