Huelskamp: 'It's Not Over' - Constitutional Amendment Would Restore Gay Marriage Ban

http://www.newsmax.com/ ^ | Thursday, 27 Jun 2013 10:25 AM | Lisa Barron

[dartuser]

In this political climate, where there is no Republican will to take on ANY difficult issues ... this will not happen.

[Da Coyote]

Won’t matter. The SCOTUS would declare the Constitution “unconstitutional”.

It’s time to tell them to shove it.

[Sherman Logan]

Of course not. It’s 17x more difficult to pass a constitutional amendment than to win the presidency or a super-majority in Congress.

Why people think an amendment is the solution to problems created by losing elections is a great mystery.

Amendment ONLY pass when there is broad national and regional consensus in their favor.

[boomop1]

Never happen.

[Hostage]

Good to hear. 37 states have already signed their own DOMA and that’s just enough to ratify an amendment.

And if Congress won’t propose the amendment, then 34 of statehouses can propose it per the US Constitution.

[DannyTN]

Well apparently there is at least one. Source http://www.artofmanliness.com

[Buckeye McFrog]

A Con-Con would be really scary stuff. Every nutball and activist would glom onto it like Silly Putty. We’d end up with amendments for a “right” to health care, a “right” to free college, a “right” to two weeks paid vacation, etc.

[Amendment10]

Corrupt Congress should have proposed an amendment to the Constitution which defines marriage as a one man, one woman union instead of making constitutionally questionable federal DOMA law in first place. (But thank God that they didn’t since words like man and woman have no meaning anymore.)

But frankly, given the country is divided in all issues, essentially a war between good and evil, the Constitution is essentially unamendable at this time, the Article V 3/4 state supermajority required to ratify a proposed amendment nowhere to be found at this time imo. So is Rep. Tim Huelskamp just politicking?

[DannyTN]

Oh I agree. No way do we want a constitutional convention because that opens up everything. But there is a process in the current constitution for amendments. And we have enough states on board to do it.

[Regulator]

If that’s what we gotta do, that’s what we do

[Regulator]

It’s 17x more difficult to pass a constitutional amendment than to win the presidency or a super-majority in Congress

Yes But the fact that you might propose one is an issue which could help you WIN the elections in the first place.

[Hostage]

There might be such amendments but they would never be ratified by 37 states.

Right now 37 states have already signed into state law a version of DOMA.

Republicans and conservatives control the vast majority of statehouses. In fact the 2010 Tea Party tsunami was more devastating to liberals at the statehouse level than at the federal level.

A CC would quickly pare the nonsensical amendments out of the process.

The liberals can’t win in fly-over country unless they can convince conservatives to stop thinking about a CC because a CC would bring all sorts of BS amendments.....Oh Wait!

[Old North State]

Isn’t the amendment route what the people in California tried only to have a homosexual judge decide it was unconstitutional to change the constitution? Once the people no longer rule, that cannot rule themselves back into power.

[DannyTN]

"But thank God that they didn’t since words like man and woman have no meaning anymore."

So what wording do we need to make "Man" and "Woman" meaningful again?

• "biological male"?
• "biological male at birth"?
• "possessing at birth the physical sex organs of a male"?

[no-to-illegals]

Someone(s) does need to tell someone(s) to shove it. These homos win this and the Church will have to go underground or marry these homos and allow them to preach from the pulpit. I would rather see the Church close their door and go underground.

[DannyTN]

They were amending the California Consitution. And the California Supreme court upheld the amendment. Then a homosexual federal judge decided that was against the federal constitution.

This would be amending the Federal Constitution. SCOTUS could conceivably strike down such an amendment claiming it conflicts one of the other provisions. But we can either write the amendment to specifically address any conflict. Or we can impeach the justices.

[DannyTN]

They were amending the California Consitution. And the California Supreme court upheld the amendment. Then a homosexual federal judge decided that was against the federal constitution.

This would be amending the Federal Constitution. SCOTUS could conceivably strike down such an amendment claiming it conflicts one of the other provisions. But we can either write the amendment to specifically address any conflict. Or we can impeach the justices.

[fwdude]

Amendment ONLY pass when there is broad national and regional consensus in their favor.

Not so. The 18th Amendment was passed with strong opposition, about half of the country. It was about where this country is now.

I think that with this Supreme Court treachery, there are going to be a lot of minds changed about pushing for the amendment that weren't convinced before. A LOT of minds.

[Old North State]

I understand that the California effort was to amend the State constitution, but it seems to be that the precedent has been set that the will of judges supersedes that of the people and there is no way around them. If the court is not bound by a plebiscite, what is to keep them from declaring the result of an impeachment effort unconstitutional? Didn't Judge Kennedy justify a ruling on what he considered to be the ill will of opponents of homosexual marriage? Couldn't he and reflexive leftists on the court do the same thing? Once an elitist court decides it is no longer bound by the expressed will of the people the people have no secure their liberty.