Posted on 02/25/2004 9:41:33 AM PST by tpaine
The president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world we assume. We think. Do you know why we have to do this, according to the president? Do you know why we need a constitutional amendment to see to it that everybody understands and knows what marriage means? Do you know why?
Why? It's not just that. It's not just some people breaking the law.
It's that we're not enforcing the law!
We've already got law. But since nobody's willing to enforce it, we've got to put another law on the books, this time in the Constitution.
The president of the United States said, We've got rogue courts and activist judges who are legislating from the bench. Something is terribly wrong.
Now, you and I all know this is nothing new, and we all know this is terribly wrong. But for the most powerful man in the world to stand up and say, There's nothing we can do about activist judges legislating from the bench and rogue courts imposing their version of law and order on society? There's nothing we can do about it, folks. Nothing we can do.
There's nothing currently in the statutes that allows us to stop this. There's nothing we can do to stop these people from doing what they're doing. Instead, we're going to have to go amend the Constitution so they can't do it in this area. Okay, let's assume that we amend the Constitution and let's say that we get this Defense of Marriage Amendment -- and I'm all for it, don't misunderstand. I just think it's a crying, damned shame that we have to go this far. Pick any other institution that you want. Pick any other tradition in this country that you want and imagine this kind of thing happening to it. I just think it is absolutely outrageous for the most powerful -- and this is not a criticism of the president. Don't misunderstand here. I realize many of you may think I'm being critical. I'm not.
I'm...I'm...I'm... I feel totally powerless today. I feel more powerless than I have ever felt in my life. We've got the president of the United States, who himself is complaining about activist judges and rogue courts. We've got the president of the United States who is claiming that they are more powerful than the Constitution, that they are more powerful than existing statute, that they are more powerful than he is.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
I hope you are just trying to be funny...
The Democrats Big Plan - They dont want to stop a few Bush judges. They want to stop them all.
Your plan would never work.
Bologna, the Constitution also guarantees a "republican form of government" to all of the states. Republican forms of government do not allow legislatures to break the law and courts to make the law. And that is exactly the path to homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts.
Uh, I think you forgot about X42. Not only was he above the law, he flaunted it.
I wish you were wrong too ;o) How sad that elected officials flout their law-breaking, and no one has the guts to enforce the laws - they're too chicken to possibly offend their constituents. Tossing aside the dim bastions of NY City, LA, Hollyweird, SF, Atlanta, Chicago, Milwaukee, Washington DC etc, that would leave about vast majority of the constituents (flyover country) that would side with the enforcement.
The FMA will change nothing; it will simply protect long held definitions from being altered by an activist court. On every detail other than the actual word "marriage" (already taken), the state legislatures, true to the constitution, remain free to do as they wish.
Would you then support the concept that a future super-majority could pass an amendment to modify our individual RKBA's into a collective government approved licensed procedure? I say a FMA is beyond the scope of the powers granted in our constitutio
|
No plan, no Constitution, will work if judges rule counter to the will of the people, and the people tolerate it.
Is the Campaign Finance Law Constitutional? The recent one that prohibits certain "forms" of advertisement 60 days before an election? Well, is it Constitutional in light of the 1st amendment? The answer, in law, is YES. Because the law was passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, and specifically ruled on by the Supreme Court. How do we change THAT?
I'd support the concept that a super-majority can pass such an Amendment,
Our RKBA's is part of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, & property. These rights cannot be 'amended' away.
but not that they should, and I would oppose it. The founders sought to protect us from tyrannies of the majority by providing the safeguards of supermajority requirements.
Exactly.. Such a majority would be supposedly be rational enough to avoid passing 'laws' that would lead to civil war.
When we have tyrannies of the super-majority that infringe on our endowed rights, the social contract is fully abrogated, and all of the predictable consequences will follow.
Yep.
I say a FMA is beyond the scope of the powers granted in our constitution.
Where does the Constitution limit how the Constitution may be Amended?
In the principles embodied in our BOR's as a whole.. -- And in the 14th amendment, which was needed to explain those principles to rogue states after the civil war..
Now we need bold politicians to once again explain those principles to most everyone..
And in particular to our rogue courts.
BUT, I'm ashamed to say that I want to see a good ole fashon lynching, starting with the mayor of San Fran, continuing on to the people who issued those licenses to homosexuals, and including the people who preformed the ceremonies.
FOOTNOTES: F6: in them: or, to them |
Leviticus 20:13 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Romans 1:16-32 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so F7 that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain F8 God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. |
FOOTNOTES: F1: declared: Gr. determined F2: for obedience...: or, to the obedience of faith F3: with: or, in F4: with: or, in F5: among: or, in F6: in them: or, to them F7: so...: or, that they may be F8: to retain: or, to acknowledge |
|
Where does the Constitution limit how the Constitution may be Amended? In the principles embodied in our BOR's as a whole.. -- And in the 14th amendment, which was needed to explain those principles to rogue states after the civil war..
|
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.