Posted on 06/30/2003 2:45:53 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
You'll rethink that when it gets ratified...
Frankly, besides that the thing is just plain laughable on its face--I mean, a constitutional amendment?! are you kidding me?
Yep, it is laughable.
--it is enormously difficult to get one of these things passed.
This one won't be, unless it's stopped by the GOP establishment that don't really want it.
I live in Indiana--a darn conservative state--and I have my doubts that the thing would even pass here. It's just...dumb.
Yeah, Indiana is one of the dozen or so target states after the first tier. Wanna bet Indiana ratifies within 3 years?
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of, one natural male human with one "Y" and one "X" chromosome, and one natural female human with two "X" chromosomes."
Not sure if that's wishful thinking, or defeatism. Incorrect, either way.
This Amendment, or something like it, is going to pass 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.
It's same-sex marriage that's radioactive, even in California. Really. Let Howard Dean and the Dems run with it.
Thought some might be interested in the official process for passing an Amendment to the Constitution.SOURCE
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
I agree, with should be repealing amendments not proposing new ones! Let's start by getting rid of the 16th and the 17th. The 16th is killing the people and the 17th is killing the states.
So ChicagoGuy is out. We get it already. Yeah yeah, 200 years. I don't know if you've been following the news, but 200 years of State's Rights has been tossed out the window alot lately. We have a Supreme Court that is literally creating "rights" and text that simply did not appear, nor any rational Justice could prove was implied-by the US Constitution.
Precident is law, which is why their "ruling" is so important. Law is based on it now, so unless we impeach those members of the Supreme Court (not going to happen) a counter measure has to be establish or Gay Marriage is a done deal.
I think the American people would be better served by having this entire idiotic ruling reversed because alot more is affected than gay marriage by inventing this right to privacy canard. Santorum was 100% correct people, almost prophetic, and so many of you Libertarians that argued against his judicial point made fools of yourselves. The way Justice Kennedy ignorantly defended the majority decision (not citing text from the Constitution) he did exactly what Santorum predicted and effectively stopped any law against consentual sex between adult relatives, bigamy, polygamy, and prositution from being upheld as "Constitutional"
I agree that an amendment seems rash, but given the Judicial Activism of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, legislators aren't left with alot of options.
It's same-sex marriage that's radioactiveI'd say the meter reads somewhere beyond weapons-grade plutonium.
Look at the DOMA vote, it was huge. The moderates may not be as left as you think they are.
Yeah, it's not ideal, but the Lawrence decision was so bad that there are now only two choices... Amend the Constitution or impeach six Justices.
The SCOTUS overreached, and you're going to get an Amendment that corrects it, like it or not.
Because 85% of the morons who will promote this amendment won't be able to keep their big traps shut about the sodomy decision when talking about this. They will drone on about it, over and over and over - the soundbites will take over every other agenda.
In the end, many will wonder what the purpose of government is, why the GOP has so many red faced, middle aged, pissed off white guys dominating the agenda, and that incredible number of swing voters will swing right over to the D column.
Other cultures practice polyandry (multiple husbands), and there's a whole mess of other possibilities, for example the "line marriage" that Heinlein describes in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," which arguably yeilds an even stronger family than the usual 1man-1woman marriage.
What makes you think that the government needs to be involved in fostering strong families, anyway? We had families for hundreds of years before we had a strong central government, and arguably, the reason we don't generally have strong families anymore these days is precisely because of government intervention, not for the lack of it!!
No-fault divorce laws seriously damaged the contract of marriage, rendering virtually meaningless a breach of that contract, and government's welfare policies that are designed to keep the poor in their place and dependant on government, instead of on themselves and the family unit, did the rest.
If someone wants to get married and there's no more tax benefits (or penalties) and legal presumptions based on marriage, and the government no longer licenses and registers marriages, people are still going to get married anyway, still going to buy a house together, still going to have kids together.
I can't fathom why people think that because two men want to enter into a marriage-like contract it poses a threat to the usual form of marriage and family.
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.