Posted on 04/25/2015 11:11:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Senator Ted Cruz has submitted legislation to create a constitutional amendment to allow states to determine what marriage is, and not federal judges.
Days before the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage, Senator Ted Cruz has filed two bills to protect states that bar gay couples from marrying.
Cruz's legislation would establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action, according to bill language obtained by Bloomberg News.
A second bill would bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue until such an amendment is adopted.
You know, nearly all the the candidates running for president say that marriage should be decided by the states. That's an easy way of saying nothing of substance. Since federal judges have taken away the states' ability to decide what is and isn't marriage, saying you favor "the states deciding" doesn't change the reality of what is about to happen: as most people expect, the Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage throughout the country. (My personal prediction, as an attorney who watches these things: it will be a 6-3 vote, with John Roberts siding with Anthony Kennedy and the liberals because he wants to be on the winning side.)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I never said we needed more foreign workers.
Provide a quote or shut it
The H1, Korean, ChiCom, and soon, the unlimited TPP visas will mean the end of American employment that is not niche-based.
We lost R and D investment to the ChiComs a couple of years (or so) back.
And now, with Common Core, we’re going to lose even more.
Had I young children, I’d move to someplace like Singapore or Japan.
Do you think NJ, NY, Chicago and other jurisdictions should be able to infringe on the right to bear arms as they see fit? If the first 10 amendments apply only to the federal government they can.
That’s a pretty simple question. I agree it is possible I could be misunderstanding you.
I have read post 38 and if I understand him Bork agrees with me. States can put pretty much whatever gun laws in effect they choose.
Misleading headline. Cruz is attempting to protect the sovereignty of the states in defining marriage and is, thereby, attempting to protect states’ rights, as per the Constitution.
Sorry, that was a different poster, you jumped into that exchange.
‘To: stanne
Cruz is one of my top two choices, the other being Walker. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with him 100 percent, IMO he happens to be dead wrong here, as was your assertion that we need more foreign tech workers. Given how Walker’s stance on this subject resonates with the middle class, I think Walker is better here.’
I jumped into it?
Oh he certainly takes stands no doubt. But he never seems to get them passed ever. I think he is quite the grandstander. He will make a wonderful President. Most are great at giving speeches.
Legal immigration is what killed America.
The democrats as we know them, would not exist without the immigration law that they passed in 1965 to replace us as voters.
Dumb post of the century.
Nobody on here opposes this measure but not one intelligent person believes it will pass anytime.
No idea what you are talking about
Is it the same legislation Cruz promoted in 2011 that everyone her is do hung up on?
How can you not understand post 68?
Legal immigration destroyed America and it is why the democrats changed the immigration law in 1965, they knew that Americans were largely anti-democrat, and they wanted foreigners to replace us as voters.
John F. Kennedy had a dream to replace the American people with foreign voters, a different kind of voter, the importation of an endless supply of democrat voters.
“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s.
In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin.
After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.” Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”
Yes, the first ten amendments are pointed at the feds, not at the states. So, yes, theoretically the states can do what they want but there’s no such thing as a “state” per se, only the majority of the population of that state to decide the laws of that state either through their state representatives or directly through initiatives.
And if you look at history and the “parade of horribles” I listed, you’ll see that the problem is almost never that the majority of the populace of the each state have perpetrated some horror on the state. The states are the ones with the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage laws and pro-gun rights laws. The problem is almost never the states but the feds unconstitutionally restricting the states.
People need to get real clear about who the bad guys are. Our Founders knew and history speaks very plainly: the feds, not the states, are the greatest threat to our rights and freedoms.
If true, are these time limits constitutional? I don't see where the Constitution puts a time limit on ratifying a constitutional amendment, at least not the Article V convention of states amendment process. I suppose if nothing else, Cruz could submit it through the COC process.
Uh, yeah, you did, you responded to my post 14 which was directed at someone else.
I understand your point, and in general agree with it.
But, yeah, let’s look at history.
By far the greatest infringements on the natural rights of American citizens occurred almost entirely as the result of action by southern states, during the roughly 75 year reign of Jim Crow. Nothing else even comes close. And that took place despite 14A, per your argument, being set up to prevent it from happening.
So, no, I don’t trust states to always do the right thing. I don’t trust anybody to always do the right thing.
I will cheerfully agree that an out of control federal government is a greater problems than a single state going off the rails.
Nothing is perfect and the beauty of the local or state issue is you don’t have to live in the South or a state you don’t like. The feds force EVERYBODY into THEIR perverse mold.
Jim Crow laws in a part of our country cannot compare to the nation-wide horrific bloodbath of 70-some million slaughtered unborn infants or the spiritual decline through banning prayer and the Bible in schools, among other things, all brought on by the feds. The feds are by far the greatest threat to our lives, liberties, and well being.
I oppose abortion, and if it will make you happy I’ll agree it’s a greater violation of natural rights than Jim Crow.
Which makes JC second and leaves the two of them infinitely far above anything else.
Under the states’ rule you don’t have to live in the South, so you are free to move to a state more to your liking.
Under the feds, you are not free unless you move to another country which probably isn’t free either.
When you ask if it’s Constitutional ... all I can say is that it has been done. It hasn’t been done consistently, but it just started recently.
I believe it started with the 18th Amendment ...
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission here to the States by the Congress.
—
20th Amendment
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
—
21st Amendment
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
—
22nd Amendment
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
—
The 19th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th did not have it. The 27th did not have it, as it was first proposed in 1791 ... :-) ...
There could be a possible argument that it should not have a time limit, as there are proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment who think there should be no time limitation on it approval.
If the issue gets turned into some kind of Constitutional argument that there should be no time limit, then you can be assured that the proponents of the ERA will be the first ones to push it through ... :-) ...
Here’s something on the ERA ...
The Equal Rights Amendment
Unfinished Business for the Constitution
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/strategy.htm
As it is with discussions of Constitutional issues ... it all comes down, in the end, to how it works out in real life, in other words, “where the rubber meets the road” ... :-) ...
And for that, I can’t tell you because I can’t predict the future.
Abortion is legal due to Roe v. Wade. Doesn't make it right.
Bringing in more H-1B visa holders serves one purpose and one purpose only - to depress American wages. Cruz is wrong to promote that. Believing such is not hatred of Cruz - anyone who plays the 'hate' tag is being intellectually bankrupt. I don't hate Cruz, I would still gladly support him. But he is wrong on this.
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.