“If you go down this path of passing an Amendment for every moral issue, you’re going to have a Constitution with a list of Amendments stretching to the floor.”
Simply false, Bill.
Provide us a list of such proposed amendments now.
Doesn’t exist.
I’m aware of three you might consider similar:
* Constitutionally guarantee every prenatal child’s right to be born in all 50 states
* Constitutionally define marriage — because of its indispensable impact on society, even Western Civ — to be only between one man and one woman
* Constitutionally protect the Flag of the U.S. from physicial desecration
I’m both a strong advocate of the 10th Amendment and a supporter of all three of the above.
And I reject as ridiculous the suggestion that if the above three are enacted, amendments to outlaw birth control or the act of sodomy or spitting on the sidewalk will follow.
But given your argument, do you or don’t you support the 19th century amendment banning slavery. Please explain either way, since it obviously violated “federalism.”
I can provide one such instance and it's in the past. The 18th Amendment. Moral legislation of the issue of alcohol. 50 years ago no one would have even thought that the definition of marriage would be considered a federal issue. The same with abortion. These were issues for the states as intended.
For that reason for you to ask me for a list of issues that may be of moral concern 50 years from now I can't. But to lay the groundwork for the Amendment process to be used by our descendants is very dangerous. Now to address your three 'concerns'.
Constitutionally guarantee every prenatal child’s right to be born in all 50 states
The problem with this is very slippery. You are allowing the federal government to legislate when life begins. Are you willing to allow them to legislate when life ends? I don't know about you, but I definitely do not want some of the ghouls surrounding 'right to life' cases making a decision that is one for my family and loved ones.
Constitutionally define marriage — because of its indispensable impact on society, even Western Civ — to be only between one man and one woman
Too easy again. You are passing an Amendment to limit sovereign rights of the individual. How long did the last Amendment to do that last again? Note I'm not advocating homosexual unions but it's an issue for the states. You also very clearly change the intent of the Constitution as a whole. From a document used to limit government to a document used to limit government and the citizens of individual decisions. Congratulations, you've changed the whole concept of the Framers' vision to push a moral issue.
* Constitutionally protect the Flag of the U.S. from physicial desecration
Oh goodness. Let's protect a piece of cloth. You do realize the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech don't you? And while you may find burning of a flag disdainful, it is still a political statement against the union it represents.
But given your argument, do you or don’t you support the 19th century amendment banning slavery.
Again the non-sequitur trap of comparison of slavery to protecting marriage (as if there is a comparison). Of course I would have supported the banning of slavery.
The question however to you is would you support the right of the separate and sovereign states to ban slavery (not to mention blacks) in their own territory? Why? Because they made the decision you agree with? Or because they had the right to make that decision? That's the difference between partisan supporters and federalism. Those that advocate federalism do so even if the decision made by another state is not a decision they would have made in their own state.