Posted on 07/13/2004 10:13:55 AM PDT by truthandlife
This is flat-out incorrect. Please read the essay I've linked to, and you'll see why this statement is wrong.
That would be incorrect. Marriage was defined by the feds when Utah entered the union. Either they changed their law to refelct marriage = one man one woman or they could not enter the union. That is and remains the precedent for the definition of marriage. The states regulate marriage but can not change the meaning any more than Utah could except for edicts from tyrannical courts.
In addition there are thousands of federal laws relating to whther people are married or not. The idea that 50 different states can evolve this new paradigm of marriage differently is ridiculous. The federal courts will say that if a hetero couple move from Mass to Alabama and their marriage is recognised then equal protection under the law demands that Tom, Joe, Dick and Harry must be treated the same. And whats more that would be the correct interpretation of the constitution.
I love the politics of convenience around here.
Beats ignorance.
If the delegates to an Article V Convention attempted to repeal elements of the Bill of Rights, I don't believe for a second that two-thirds of the States Assembled in Convention would pass any such amendment proposal. While such a thing may technically be within the realm of possibility, it is something I simply cannot conceive happening. Not even a mass national hysteria of some sort could prompt such a supermajority of states to vitiate the Bill of Rights.
As far as attempting to short-circuit the ratification process, this simply is not possible. The process itself is codified within the Constitution, and there are established Supreme Court precedents on this matter going back to the years just after the Founding. If an Article V Convention approved amendment proposals, Congress would have no choice but to pass them on to the Several States for ratification, and Congress' only function would be to decide whether the states would use the Legislative Method or the Ratifying Convention Method of ratification. The enforcement mechanism would be the Supreme Court issuing a ruling by relying on established precedent.
As far as an Article V Convention tackling the Third Forbidden Subject, I would envision a suit originating in the Convention or Congress charging that the Convention had exceeded its authority under Article V. Were Congress to attempt to tackle the Third Forbidden Subject, I would envision the same enforcement mechanism. Both a Convention and Congress have the same proposal powers, and the restrictions about the Third Forbidden Subject apply equally to both.
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.