Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

Senator Ted Cruz has submitted legislation to create a constitutional amendment to allow states to determine what marriage is, and not federal judges.

Days before the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage, Senator Ted Cruz has filed two bills to protect states that bar gay couples from marrying.

Cruz's legislation would establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action, according to bill language obtained by Bloomberg News.

A second bill would bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue until such an amendment is adopted.

You know, nearly all the the candidates running for president say that marriage should be decided by the states. That's an easy way of saying nothing of substance. Since federal judges have taken away the states' ability to decide what is and isn't marriage, saying you favor "the states deciding" doesn't change the reality of what is about to happen: as most people expect, the Supreme Court will legalize gay marriage throughout the country. (My personal prediction, as an attorney who watches these things: it will be a 6-3 vote, with John Roberts siding with Anthony Kennedy and the liberals because he wants to be on the winning side.)

I disagree with the idea. Cruz shouldn't be getting into this fight. The ONLY solution is for government at all levels to stop treating married and single people differently. That way, without any reference to faith or sexual preference, the conflict of First Amendment Rights (Freedom of Religion vs Equal Protection) goes away in an instant.

(However, I do appreciate his stand for states to tackle this issue, and helping to strengthen the stripped-down powers of the several states.)

What’s wrong with legal immigration? You don’t think legal immigration of high tech skilled workers is contributing to 20 million additional food stamp users dice Obama started, do you? Or that it’s they who are producing a $18,000,000,000.00 growing debt our kids are getting strapped with?

Cruz:

“There is overwhelming bipartisan support outside of Washington that we need to finally secure our borders, enforce our laws, and stop the problem of illegal immigration...But that’s not going to happen as long as the president is ordering Border Patrol officers not to enforce the law.” SOURCE

Cruz:

“Republicans in Congress should use every tool at our disposal—our constitutional checks and balances—to stop President Obama’s amnesty...both Houses should use the power of the purse, which the Framers understood to be the most potent tool Congress has to rein in an out-of-control Executive.” SOURCE

“Is this a distraction so we won’t notice that he wants to INCREASE legal immigration?”

First off, I don’t know of a better POTUS candidate currently running on the immigration issue. Cruz has been consistent in his opposition to rewarding those who break our laws and the need to secure the borders. But what he has said and he’s not wavered from this position is we do need to reform and streamline our LEGAL immigration system.

I have an Asian wife that legally immigrated here and I also adopted a daughter from the Philippines, and I can attest first hand to how screwed up our current legal immigration system is. In fact, I ended up living in the Philippines almost 5 years just to bring our daughter here legally.

Also, there is a need for more skilled workers particularly in the tech and health care sectors, and we ought to be making it easier not more difficult for those types of immigrants to come in.

I believe this is all Cruz is saying, and even if you disagree with it, I think it’s a reasonable position and at least he’s been CONSISTENT in what he’s said, so you know when he says something you can actually believe that he means it — unlike some other candidates out there...

There's no need for these amendments.

States that have their own constitutional amendments affirming and upholding traditional marriage (NOTE: THESE ARE NOT "GAY MARRIAGE" BANS DAMNITALL!) should have told these federal judges to piss off.

Federal judges have no jurisdiction or compelling arguments in overturning these state amendments.

NOTHING in the 14th Amendment allows the feds to interfere with ANYTHING except forced state segregation as decided by the Slaughterhouse Cases precedent.

The "Incorporation Doctrine" is unconstitutional and should be rejected. A better bill would be to repeal the Incorporation Doctrine as unconstitutional and thus put the first ten Amendments back on their feet. The feds would have no pretended authority over anything mentioned in the first ten amendments including marriage.

In the alternative, the danger of introducing a "marriage amendment" into Congress is that one way or the other almost certainly the original or amended wording will not be air-tight enough for the feds to construe some sort of power to enforce. That's all they need.

Their pretended power to enforce the first ten amendments via the phony Incorporation Doctrine has lead to an unimaginable parade of horribles including banning prayer and the Bible in public schools, forced integration, affirmative action, and quotas, prohibiting state anti-abortion laws, interfering with individuals right to discriminate (freedom to choose), and attempting to overturn state anti-gay marriage laws.

Better would be to slay the underlying lie of the Incorporation Doctrine and put the first Ten Amendments back on its feet.

Situations where US workers are training their foreign replacements is a system that's out of control. A society where foreign labor is needed for many jobs because people get by better on government handouts is just wrong.

Until those problems are addressed, talking about anything except decreasing foreign labor in the US is not helpful.

Also, there is a need for more skilled workers particularly in the tech and health care sectors, and we ought to be making it easier not more difficult for those types of immigrants to come in.

Wrong. There are plenty of American workers. Employers simply want to keep American wages down by importing more H-1B visa holders. This is one area where I strongly disagree with Cruz.

I’m all for a Constitutional Amendment like this, but one should realize that it’s going to take about seven years to go through the process. Congress has been setting time limits on approving Constitutional Amendments (maximum time), which has been seven years. But it is possible for enough states to ratify it in just one year ... but unlikely. If it’s wildly popular with the voting electorate, I would say about three or four years.

The feds would have no pretended authority over anything mentioned in the first ten amendments including marriage.

You mean like the 2nd Amendment? All the progress made in rolling back gun laws in blue states can just go back down the drain?

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sounds like incorporation to me.

Possibly you can make a case that 14A should be repealed, but not that it doesn't require states to recognize the rights of US citizens.

So we don't have enough American citizens to fill the holes in tech and health care? We have to bring in folks from outside to fill those holes? I thought I read somewhere Americans are being forced out of tech and health care by foreigners who will work for less. So, it isn't really about filling holes, it's about cutting labor costs, right? ...and you're okay with Americans being forced out of their jobs for folks who can barely speak English? Huh? Maybe you spent too much time overseas?

You do know that legal immigration is lawful, right?

And that Cruz has come out with the only strong, credible and constitutionally sound argument against illegal immigration, right ?

And that corporatism, which is the culprit here, is an enormous problem, that comes about fifth on the scale of horrible offenses to our existence, and about 48th on the list of things Americans have any clue about

And you do know the pres candidate is up against a candidate who has the undying support of 40% of voters, a margin of error of cheating worth about 20% and the media worth at least 20%

And that’s while we learn the unsurprising situation that she made historically dangerous unethical deals in her official post with a conspiracy she’s about to squirm out of

And you’re whining about some lawful position?

Shame

Find someone better. And I don’t mean that all talk flip flopping walker

A better bill would be to repeal the Incorporation Doctrine as unconstitutional and thus put the first ten Amendments back on their feet.

Congress has no authority to force the courts to adopt a particular interpretation of the Constitution. Except of course by the nuclear options of restricting jurisdiction or impeaching judges.

Neither of which is going to happen.

No such bill or of the type Cruz proposes has any chance at all of passing. Cruz is grandstanding.

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.