New anti- gay marriage strategy

Pittsburg Tribune Review ^ | June 25, 2006 | Robert Novak

[balch3]

By Robert Novak Sunday, June 25, 2006

WASHINGTON Supporters of a constitutional amendment to keep the courts from legalizing homosexual marriage, stunned by poor support in the recent Senate vote, are beginning a campaign for a constitutional convention.

The provision of the Constitution's Article V requiring such a convention if called by two-thirds of the state legislatures has never been used. Fear of throwing the Constitution open to general amendment has overridden support for specific issues. However, key advocates of barring gay marriages believe the constitutional convention strategy will keep the issue alive.

A recent memo circulated within the anti-gay marriage coalition lists Princeton professor Robby George, Tony Perkins and Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, and conservative financial consultant Frank Cannon as favoring the strategy.

[balch3]

this is an excerpt, but the this is all there is about this subject. The column goes on to talk about other things after this.

[ClearCase_guy]

This could be very scary.

But, to be honest, I think the country has drifted far enough that this is worth the risk.

Government schools, gun control, separation of church and state, english as a national language, porous national borders, homosexual marriage, etc. These topics are important and I think the country needs to nail down positions.

I suspect that I wouldn't like some of the decisions -- but the weasily courts are pushing all these topics in the wrong direction, so I'm willing to take a chance that a Constitutional Convention will be less than 100% wrong.

[Pete]

A recent memo circulated within the anti-gay marriage coalition

I have two problems with this sentence both having to do with the term "anti-gay marriage". First, there is no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is between one man and one woman. Second, the coalition is not anti-gay marriage. It is pro-marriage, where marriage is correctly defined as above.

[weegee]

Better to have an amendment you don't like (and can even repeal) than to have judicial fiat declare rights that are not identified by the Constitution and cannot be repealed.

[xzins]

Dumb strategy. They'll wake up the next morning with no 2nd amendment. Who controls the Constitutional Convention?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Answer: The Congress.

Who will determine the members of the convention?

Answer: The Congress.

They are the last people on the face of the earth that I want in charge or organizing and manning a constitutional convention.

[cotton1706]

There are very few, if any, men alive today that could match the constitutional-making brilliance of our founders. I shudder to think of who some of the delegates might be. A lot of states have revoked their con-con applications recently. I don't think this idea is going anywhere.

[reformedliberal]

You have mirrored my concerns exactly.

Thankfully, the process of gaining 2/3rds of the state legislatures is a long and difficult one.

Besides no 2nd Amendment, we will lose free exercise of religion. The Constitutional Privileges of the Executive will be diluted. We will lose the Electoral College. More than likely, we will lose inalienable rights and they will be replaced with rights that can be taken away by unelected bureaucrats. Likely the Judiciary will achieve even more protection from oversight, impeachment, recall or review.

The Constitution of the United States of America is unique and irreplacable. I would personally not support anyone who was agitating for a Constitutional Convention.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Novak may be incorrect. I believe Prohibition was overturned by state conventions.

[Stingray51]

Who will determine the members of the convention?

Answer: The Congress.

I am not disputing this but I had always assumed that the states (state legislatures?) would select delegates for any constitutional convention (just as they did for the first constitutional convention). Is there any authority / articles either way on this point beyond the provision quoted? thanks

[middie]

The issue of a constitutional convention was a problem being widely discussed when I was in law school in some long past geologic era. The conventional wisdom seemed to be that once such a convention is convened the entire text of the organic document is up for grabs. There can be no limit on the body such as when a state governor calls a special session and limits the call to a specific issue. Everything can get cut up and re-written and that would be a complete cluster f&$%. The Bill of rights and every article and provision can be tinkered with. There is probably no greater danger to the U.S. Constitution than a convention.

[xzins]

My reading of the constitution says that the Congress itself mans the convention.

However, it doesn't necessarily spell that out. It does, however, put Congress in charge of "calling" the convention.

[xzins]

I agree with you.

Unless America thinks that Sen. Frist is on a par with Thomas Jefferson, and Rep Hastert does a passable Ben Franklin, and Harry Reid would be a cool Alex. Hamilton, then we'd be best advised not to touch this in our era.

I don't know how many of Congress are sell-outs and how many are sincere. Having to wonder about that says we should not call a Constitutional Convention.

[longtermmemmory]

Too many rinos.

Who get to be the delegates? The country club senators would jump right up.

The Do nothing Republicans would cloud the issue with absurd flag burning amendments languages that is a non issue for most people, in order to obstruct.

Then the homos would say somthing to the effect of "more important things"

THEN the abortion issue would try and squeesze in..

I think it is best we keep pushing and pushing for the senate vote to have this happen.

How about this strategy, why not pass PRE APPROVAL ot the senate FMA? IOW trigger votes which say this state APPROVE the FMA upon approval of the senate.

Can voters ORDER their senators to vote to approve?

[Stingray51]

Thanks. Well, I would certainly not favor a convention under those circumstances! (There have got to be some articles out there on the subject of how delegates would be selected, so hopefully somebody will post something clearing this up.)

[Raycpa]

There is probably no greater danger to the U.S. Constitution than a convention.

Therein lies the genius of this strategy. Once congress sees the handwriting on the wall, it would likely render the point moot by passing the amendment. I would assume most minority liberals would vote for it in fear of what would get passed.

[ops33]

I don't agree. I think the states, through their legislatures, control the outcome of any constitutional convention. Anything coming out of a constitutional convention must ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. That means that any 12 state legislatures can veto any changes coming out of a constitutional convention. One question not answered by the Constitution; who controls the agenda, the Congress or the Convention?

[Doug Loss]

Thankfully, the process of gaining 2/3rds of the state legislatures is a long and difficult one.

Actually, that may not be so. In the '70s and '80s something like 32 states passed resolutions calling for a constitutiona convention, to deal with a balanced budget amendment. Some later rescinded those resolutions, but there's no real judgment on the legal validity of such recissions. Since it's pretty generally agreed that a convention couldn't be limited to considering just the one purpose the resolution was passed for, I think those resolutions are still in effect and we'd only need a few more states to pass resolutions to have the convention called.

[reformedliberal]

I'd have to ask the advice of a Constitutional scholar on that one.

I seem to remember that the ERA garnered something near to 30 states, as well, then, after a hiatus, they began the campaign again and it still went nowhere. Legislative composition changes every two years.

I am just not suicidal enough to want to go all they way to a Convention, especially over gays marrying. I would rather leave it to the States. I also think that now that the shock value is over, now that we have already had gay marriages and gay divorces and gay child custody suits, the issue is going to have even less gay support.

As for a balanced budget amendment, like the line-item veto, the courts would probably find some way to knock it down or dilute it. If we had a surplus, we would have the donks fighting balanced budgets by demanding Rainy Day Trust funds they could then raid.

You cannot legislate morality. We can use these issues as litmus tests in electing our representatives, but I doubt we can accomplish much by rewriting the Constitution.

[middie]

There is no need for a const'al amendment---It can be done by statute in addition to engaging in what used to be known as federalism and having the states do their thing(before this administration usurped that concept too).

[little jeremiah]

List? I, too, am getting really sick of the "anti-gay marriage". How can someone be against something that doesn't exist?