Posted on 10/03/2007 6:09:04 AM PDT by pissant
The Republican Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson, who is considered "progressive" on gay rights, says he has met with social conservatives who will accept his position on gay marriage.
Mr Thompson is in favour of a constitutional amendment that bars judges from allowing gay marriages but that would allow state governments to legalise gay marriage.
"Everyone I have talked to in my meetings like this, the answer has been yes," said Mr Thompson.
But Mr Thompson accepted that social conservatives do have reservations: "I think they prefer their own wording. They are primarily concerned about marriage being a union between a man and a woman."
He added: "What I have done is fashion something that says judges can't do that any more."
"You've got to be awfully, awfully reticent to go in and do more than is absolutely necessary in terms of a constitutional amendment," said Thompson. "They understand that and appreciate that and I think they think I have a good approach. I can say they think they have a better approach."
Donald Downs of the University of Wisconsin told the United Press that the proposed amendment would be a "very strange" addition to the American Constitution.
A former actor, Mr Thomson represented Tennessee in the Senate from 1994 to 2003.
As well as his work on Law and Order, he is a well-know radio host in the US.
He has uttered some of the most memorable lines in modern movies, among them, "Sh*t, son, the Ruskies don't take a dump without having a plan," in The Hunt for Red October.
Thompson played similarly straight-talking characters in Days of Thunder and Die Hard 2: Die Harder
Yes, DOMA is a federal act that is presently vulnerable to Full Faith and Credit.
I, me personally, want the Feds out of this. But Fred Thompson wants to restrict the jurisdiction of federal judges from using Full Faith and Credit as a tool to liberalize social taboos on all fifty states.
His amendment does not negate Full Faith and Credit, it allows for state legislatures for certain issues such as marriage to sign off on recipocity with other states, but not judges.
Hear it direct from the Warhorse’s mouth in this video:
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/09/political-video-of-the-day-fred-1.html
You’re welcome.
Your last statement really needs you to rethink. Supreme Court Justices are frequently asked to write opinions on legislation. Their staffs work at this. There are committees that seek input from the judiciary because it only makes sense to get it right the first time.
So no to such bizarre recusal, if Justice Roberts writes an opinion about a proposed amendment, there is no conflict of interest.
So, you think it practical to get 2/3 of the House and Senate, plus 3/4 of the States to agree to making Federal recognition of homosexual marriage illegal, but doing the same to make both the Feds and the States recognition of homosexual marriage illegal is not practical? Or do you just consider the latter undesirable, due to federalist reasoning?
If, say, Orrin Hatch were to be appointed to the USSC, I would expect him to recuse himself on ruling about the constitutionality of laws he drafted, but not ones he merely voted on.
Drafting or opinion writing is a fine line in the process of developing. I do not expect Thompson’s people to hand Roberts a piece of paper and say “Here, write it”. I expect them to seek opinion about clashes with other amendments, conformance with other parts and so forth.
In such a hypothetical where Roberts were to write (actually his staff for his review) an opinion about potential problems regarding the 14th A., then Thompson’s people would change the language to address his points, and back and forth until agreement was found. This is normal and appropriate.
As far as Justice Roberts ruling on a subsequent passed amendment that he had an input in the draft process, that would be a good thing because it would set precedent in the context of original intent. He would know firsthand what the architects of the amendment intended.
Rudy may be faking it, but I don’t think he is fooling many here on FR.
I certainly hope not.
I said "in this regard", i.e. on the subject of homosexual marriage. Suppose a state does not wish to sign a reciprocity agreement? What if one or more states have no wish to issue any form of "full faith and credit" to Massachusetts marriages? What standing do citizens of the US have in interstate lawsuits, under Article III?
For Thompson's amendment to work, it would have to override parts of Article III, Article IV, and the 14th A.
Hear it direct from the Warhorse’s mouth in this video:
I assume the article is a transcript of the video? If so, I'd say his proposal is pretty vague. Lots on what he would like to see happen, little about how to "get 'er done". For example: "The second part of my amendment would also state that judges — judges could not impose this on the federal or state level, unless a state legislature signs off on it."
Does that mean that they COULD enforce it on the Federal level if some state legislature approved (i.e. Fed benefits for legally married State citizens), or does it mean that judges have no jurisdiction at the Fed level, and State jurisdiction only if approved? Dunno. It's an ambiguous statement. Hard to know what his idea is without a rough draft of the actual amendment.
Does his proposal fix Federal marriage definition as specified in DOMA, or does it open the door to another merry-go-round with polygamy, requiring another exception amendment to Article III, IV and the 14th to fix? Dunno. Again, no actual draft proposal to judge by.
If a few states manage to get SCOTUS to force gay marriage recognition on the rest, there will be an easy time with the amendment process.
I've no problem with the drafters soliciting the CJ's opinion on proposed law. I do have a problem with him drafting any language of it. We have divided branches of government for a reason.
Having the head of the Judicial Branch writing law intended to limit the powers of the Judicial Branch, and then later ruling on what the intent of the law is ... you see no potential conflict there?
No problem.
Should it happen, I guarantee you two things. 1) More than one competing amendment would be proposed, including a straight up Constitutional definition of marriage as one man and one woman, period. 2) It would pass far more easily than a convoluted restructuring of the full faith and credit clause that also tried to narrowly limit the powers of the judiciary.
Nice article on your blog. Our beloved State Dept in action.
Many folks right here on FR use that exact reasoning to justify the federal war against marijuana users.
Whuzzah matter pissant, you gotta stir the pot once again on the gay marriage debate by posting from a publication called PINKNEWS to detract attention from your guy doing....doing....
What exactly is it your guy does again?
Conservatives are guilty of wanting the fedgov to impose THEIR agenda on everyone, but not to the extent that the left does.
Cons need to understand that federalism applies to everything, not just the left’s pet causes.
...and you side NEVER engages in posting article that distorts the other candidated platform?
Maybe I am missing something, but I know of no one going out of their way to hunt down every negative Romney/Hunter story to post every day. Romney and Hunter fanboys are the worst.
I have witness some but many times I am busy elsewhere you have a few that like to post that kind of stuff.
...and their reputation precedes them!
Are you now shifting this from marriage to interstate lawsuits?
You will have to wait to see the language and scope of the amendment before commenting on how it would work.
If you want to work on it write his campaign and ask for a job. Good luck. But I am not going to second guess the amendment design here because it is engaging in tail chasing without knowing content and scope.
I am basing alot of my support for his amendment idea on the fact that he is a brilliant legal scholar, that he has close relations with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I imagine he has had the best legal minds to converse with on this subject and that they all know the feasibility of such an amendment.
The video is him addressing ordinary folks, not a legislative or legal body. Thompson is aware that he needs to communicate differently with ordinary citizens than with trained persons in law.
Polygamy is already defined out in DOMA by the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
If you are going to start raising the polygamy canard then I know you are gaming for a distraction. Because you should know better.
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.