"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"
So a Constitional Amendment, if passed, would be...an unconstitional usurpation of state powers?
Your Constitutional analysis, I have to say, is really something. I'm sorry I implied you were stupid.
That's an interesting question. Today the states clearly have the power over marriages, but after the amendment they would not. The only other usurpation I have seen was the ludicrous 18th Amendment. I don't know if there were any challenges to that or not. But I don't mean to imply the 10th Amendment is inviolate. But it does represent one of the most important aspects of our republic, federalism. I'm very much against tampering with that.
This amendment might be different in that in addition to usurping the just powers of the states, depending on the wording of the amendment, it may in fact violate the 14th Amendment. If it is narrowly defined just for the institution of marriage, it my be alright, as keeping marriage between a man and a woman is not in violation of the 14th Amendment. Extending it in any way however to other kinds of associations or arrangements would certainly violate the 14th. This will be a first.
Your Constitutional analysis, I have to say, is really something. I'm sorry I implied you were stupid.
No problem. We've both traded barbs. Not that I enjoy it.
My heavens! That ... that would mean the entire U.S. Constitution is a massive usurpation of state powers!