[The Red Zone]

We aren't calling for a mere "law," but a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment becomes part of the Constitution and CAN NOT be overturned by the Supreme Court. In fact, they are bound to defend it.

However, we've seen what they can do with a clause they want to find in the Constitution. Such as the cancerous commerce clause gripping its slimy tentacles around anything with the remotest touch upon commerce between the states, or the "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade and now in Lawrence. Or what they can do with clauses they don't like, such as the "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment. How do we know that this Frist Amendment won't be greeted with SCOTUS eyes that read it with the implied modifier "only on alternate Wednesdays"?

[mrobison]

Ruth G. will probably try to define transvestites as women (or men), then circumvent the "man and woman" provision of a new amendment. We'll have to watch for that.

[Antoninus]

However, we've seen what they can do with a clause they want to find in the Constitution.

Hey, I agree that they use rhetorical gymnastics to impose their own meanings on phrases in the Constitution. But how does throwing up our hands and surrendering help the situation? Perhaps if we use our only check on them and publicly rebuke their innane decision with a Constitutional amendment, they'll think twice before trying this nonsense again.

Doing nothing is not an option.