How about letting States ban no-fault divorce?
What good are new Constitutional amendments if current ammendments aren’t being followed?
You just gotta love a defeatist ...
All you need is one Chief Justice with something to hide.
And a diabolical President who is allowed to hang it over his or her head.
I’ve always thought that proposed amendments to the Constitution are a silly issue to debate in a Presidential election, considering that the President has no role in the process.
I’ve been making this point for some time. Supporting an amendment is just a way for pols to pretend they are doing something about the out of control judiciary. Anyone as smart as Cruz knows it won’t happen, and it’s unnecessary. Congress has constitutional power to limit SCOTUS jurisdiction by any “exceptions” and “regulations” they choose to enact. That’s a much easier row to hoe than passing an amendment. If any of them were serious about it, they would be working for that rather than an amendment they know will never pass.
There's ALREADY an Amendment that allows states to ban same-sex marriage. It's the Tenth Amendment.
The states delegate power to the federal government, not the other way around.
Saying they want an amendment is the ultimate playing to the crowd lip-service. It’s even more pathetic lip-service if they’re already in Congress. About 100 amendments a year get proposed, and every couple of decades one even gets out of committee. Any candidate who says they want an amendment is really saying “I want credit for fighting this, but I don’t actually want to fight it”.
phoney amendments like the 16th and 17th?
1)A balance budget amendment very nearly passed Congress, failed by 1 vote in the Senate I believe with 1 RINO voting no. Passing it is not an entirely unrealistic goal.
2)GW Bush supported an amendment to ban gay marriage, such an amendment could have passed in 1995 maybe but the time it was proposed, it was too late. Scott Walker supports an amendment to basically reinstate the defense of marriage act. Sadly even amendment will not pass now, but it certainly could have during the W Bush administration if anyone had the foresight to realize the damned court would toss out DOMA.
Is the author homosexual? Sounds like it because he failed to point out the entire gay agenda has been accomplished with scams, con games, name calling, and LIES LIES LIES. The proposals he is talking about are mere counters to that. There is no reason to believe they are lies except as another leftist tactic to pressure people into not voting for the candidates that want to restore and follow the Constitution as the Framers intended.
While I strongly promote the repeal of the ill-conceived 17th Amendment for example, hypothetically speaking the Constitution would work fine as it is imo, the states having the 10th Amendment-protected power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage for example, if it was strictly interpreted (ahem) the way that the Founding States had intended for it to be understood.
Getting back to the 17th Amendment, as a consequence of what I call 17th Amendment gridlock, the corrupt Senate, the most unconstitutionally powerful office in DC imo, is simply refusing to do its job to work with the House to remove from office lawless presidents and activist justices who are using their authority to pervert the Constitution.
In fact, the corrupt Senate contributes to the perversion of the Constitution by working in cahoots with the corrupt House to pass unconstitutional bills, bills that not only steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also steals state revenues associated with those powers.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, along with corrupt senators, lawless presidents and activist justices.
