Raw Data: Text of Bush's Speech (Constitutional Marraige Amendment)

Fox News ^ | 24 Feb, 2004 | George W. Bush

[commish]

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you. Please be seated.

Good morning.

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

[commish]

Did not see the complete text posted yet, apologies if it has been

An excellent speech. Bush touched on DOMA, State laws, and the 14th Amendment in laying out his reasons. he also very clearly laid out what he would like the amendment to say

Thank you, Mr. President. You have my 100% support on this issue.

[Cboldt]

I agree with the outcome, but disagree vigorously with the proposed solution. Impeach the judges, recall the defective executives (SF Mayor, CA DA).

[KantianBurke]

Thank you Mr. President!

[commish]

I think you will have many people with the same feelings, and I can definately see your argument. Changing the Constitution is no small thing.

However, I think we have seen that we can no longer trust the Judiciary to do the right thing; and that extends all the way to the SCOTUS (IE Texas Sodomy decision). The Liberals and fringe lunatics have infiltrated the court and corrupted the process completely. IMpeachment is a drawn out and impractical endevour in this case, and changing the laws will only work as far as the next kangaroo court.

Constitutional amendment is unfortunately the only answer I see in this case. To me, the sanctity of marraige is that important.

[King Black Robe]

This puts me back in the Bush camp. Thanks for posting it because I missed the first part.

[TheDon]

I'm in favor of this ammendment.

[mylife]

I agree with the outcome, but disagree vigorously with the proposed solution. Impeach the judges, recall the defective executives (SF Mayor, CA DA).

I agree, An amendment to the constitution is not the answer, unless that amendment addresses the issue of these renegade judges

[Cboldt]

... we can no longer trust the Judiciary to do the right thing ... The Liberals and fringe lunatics have infiltrated the court and corrupted the process completely. IMpeachment is a drawn out and impractical endevour in this case, and changing the laws will only work as far as the next kangaroo court.

I can see the point of view of those who argue in favor of amending the constitution, over impeaching judges. I happen to believe that impeaching judges, while it might be more difficult, more time consuming and require more public involvement, is a superior solution. As you pointed out, the root of the problem is the defective judges. How many kludges (Constitutional amendments) will be required to keep the defective intellectuals in line? Changing the words in the Constitution will only work so far as the next kangaroo court, too.

Anyway, no sense in trying to change each other's points of view, and anyway, I'm too lazy to express why I hold the opinion I do.

Oh, I still think Bush is a good man, and a great president.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

[trebb]

some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage

This needs to be shouted out loud and often - especially in states where their elected Senators have been blocking judicial nominations.

Hear that Tommy Daschole? How many of your constituents will appreciate the perversion you have been fostering???

[longtermmemmory]

The statists are going to go nutz over this. Impeachment does not work because it does not scare judges as a group.

Executions will continue until moral improves.

I will be next to impossible to impeach a judge for a ruling of law. Unless you show some for of decision based on corruption (ie Judges is a homosexual lover of petitioning attorney), there will be no successful impeachment. (clinton impeachment)

Those that object to the FMA are putting their heads in the sand based on wishful thinking or are just alter egos of the Bald White Whale.

[FlipWilson]

This issue is bigger than "same sex" marriage. This is about halting judicial activism. Impeaching Judges is one way to go, but you would have to impeach the judiciary wholesale. Moreover, given the difficulty of getting judges through the nomination process, forget replacing them. I think the way to go is to amend the constitution to re-establish the intent of the framers, namely, that the legislature is the supreme body of government, not the courts.

I also think that this is an issue that Bush can benefit from politically. This will help him shore up support and repair some damage amongst the conservative base.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Hopefully this will stop all the evangelical backsliding on Bush.

[gonewt]

Question to all...

Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress AND ratification by 3/4 of the states.

Would such an amendment pass?

[commish]

Would such an amendment pass?

Good question with no easy answer. Let's look at all three legs :

HOUSE -- will pass easily.

STATES -- 38 needed, 38 have DOMA's, of these I would say 30-35 will vote quickly to ratify. Another handful of states are considering DOMA's. MA & Cali are wildcards of course, even though they have DOMA's; but gut feeling is 38 is easily attainable.

SENATE - Aye, there's the rub. First feeling is that the Amendment will not get past the Dem Obstruction. But, a lot of things come into play that make it possible, though not probable. 85 Sens voted for the DOMA, so on the surface one would think CMA would be a lock, but the Dem Machine is already in full mode against the CMA.

Still some will vote Aye -- Zell Miller definately. Any Sen up for Reelection will be pressured greatly to vote Aye (dependent on states of course). There are others who also will be in the position of committing political suicide if they vote no.

I would guess at first glance that there are 60 that will or HAVE to vote Aye.

Now, The bellwether will be Lil Tommy dASShole himself. he is in a campaign for his life in SD against John Thune. Voting Aye will not go over very well in SD, but Tommy is also Sen Minority Leader and as such it is his job to gen up opposition to this. So, he is the initial key --if he says NO knowing that he will kill his reelection chances, then the die is cast and the Dems will be Obstructionists.

All in All this is a WIN/WIN for Pubbies. Kerry has already said NO! He just locked up the Dem base and won the nomination, and he just LOST the General Election. Now, the rest of the Dems have to choose do we toe the party line and let this be a huge wedge issue, or do we save ourselves.

[commish]

Voting Aye will not go over very well in SD

UGH! Proofread dummy!!! This should be NO of course not AYE!

[Imal]

Lots of comments and opinions can be found on the live thread.

I oppose the amendment, and give my reasons for doing so in that thread.

[DMZFrank]

This amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[shhrubbery!]

I agree with the outcome, but disagree vigorously with the proposed solution. Impeach the judges, recall the defective executives (SF Mayor, CA DA).

I partly agree your point of view, but it's impractical. Impeachment is extremely difficult in most cases. When impeachment fails (as it almost surely would), what are we supposed to do -- lie back and enjoy the ride?

We've had autocratic and imperious judges at least since Roger Taney (and going as far back as SCOTUS's power grab in Marbury v. Madison).

How are we going to stop them, other than with a democratic process of constitutional amendment?

It took a civil war to overturn Mr. Taney. I'm afraid there's nothing short of an amendment that will overturn the leftist cabal in Boston and S.F.

[Cboldt]

We've had autocratic and imperious judges at least since Roger Taney (and going as far back as SCOTUS's power grab in Marbury v. Madison).

How are we going to stop them, other than with a democratic process of constitutional amendment?

Two points. First, I suggest a re-read of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall refused to exercise judicial power, because the court was not granted the power (by the Constitution) to grant the remedy that the plaintiff sued for. The phrase "to determine what the law is" can be taken in two diametrically opposite ways. The vast majority of cites to Marbury v. Madison interpret the phrase the worng way, i.e., that the court makes the law.

Stopping runaway judges? That's hard, but either that happens, or this experiment we call the USA will not be durable. Go ahead, amend the Constitution. But what are the people going to do if the judges ignore that? See, e.g., the Campaign Finance Reform law that prohibits the purchase or sale of candidate-pointed television or radio advertisement in the 60 days before an election. Is it Constitutional in light of the 1st amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...")? Well, is it Constitutional? The answer is YES, because 1) it was passed by congress, 2) signed by the President and 3) SCOTUS ruled that it is.