[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!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.