http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/statesri.html
Now. Instead of your stupid avoiding, try answering the substance of my argument. I say a Constitutional Amendment, first and foremost, represents an expression of the will of the people that has to meet very high hurdles, including approval by three-fourths of...the States. The result is a Federal power, but the process is not of a Federal power usurping state's rights. Get the difference?
Sure you do. But you'll go off on some stupid tangent anyway. But that's okay. 'Cause you're one of the only 'real' conservatives on FR. Really you are. Really.
I think it may be the most important distinction in the Constitution. Rights cannot be given by governments. Rights exist. They may not be recognized, as they weren't for Blacks and women for much of our history. But they still existed. Governments have no rights, only powers. Look at the distinction between the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Powers can be changed, removed, modified, etc.; rights cannot. They can only be either recognized as they are in the Bill of Rights and other amendments, or they can be held down, but never taken away. Just as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, certain rights are inalienable and endowed by their Creator. So there is a great distinction. On this board, many here confuse this and believe that either the state or federal government can do to select groups of its citizens whatever pleases it, and can at will violate those rights. They confuse the powers of the state with the rights of persons. Rights always trump powers.
Instead of your stupid avoiding,
Another fine example of your debating skills....
The result is a Federal power, but the process is not of a Federal power usurping state's rights.
Again, states have no rights to usurp. But a constitutional amendment to curtail the powers of a state to determine that which it has always been recognized as having the power to do under the Tenth Amendment would be a usurpation of the powers of the states, yes. Most amendments have been designed to ensure that states and the federal government do not infringe on the rights of its citizens, the BOR, the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th.
Clearly this amendment is designed to carve out a segment of citizens of this nation and tell a state it cannot treat that citizen as others. Now I don't have a problem with a state doing that, because it can justify it. I don't have a problem with a state that creates other than marriage relationships for legal purposes. But again, we are talking about the states. Most Americans are quite unaware of the implications of this because the zealots do not want them to know. They will not pay any attention to cries from the left, but hopefully there are enough conservatives who appreciate our constitutional republic to help educate them.
But you'll go off on some stupid tangent anyway.
Well, there's one thing we can agree on. I don't debate with the particular skills you exhibit.