Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay marriage vote appears doomed
MSNBC.com ^ | 7/13/04 | Tom Curry

Posted on 07/13/2004 10:13:55 AM PDT by truthandlife

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last
To: Publius
"This is flat-out incorrect. Please read the essay I've linked to, and you'll see why this statement is wrong."

I will. Bookmarked for reading later today.
61 posted on 07/14/2004 7:37:11 AM PDT by Wampus SC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Whole post pasted here for continuity:
To: Wampus SC
There's no guarantee that there would be any provision for giving the states a chance to ratify or reject it.

This is flat-out incorrect. Please read the essay I've linked to, and you'll see why this statement is wrong.

60 posted on 07/14/2004 2:36:27 AM EDT by Publius (Mother Nature is a hanging judge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]



I read it, and read the subsequent discussion. I read others' comments on how the Constitution might possibly be deconstructed and reshuffled by this lawful amendment process. I also read your explanation that the convention of 1787 was also only to propose amendments, and that Congress could have told them they'd gone out of bounds, but didn't. I also read your comment about the "third forbidden subject" -don't rewrite the constitution, and how it is implicit rather than explicitly spelled out.

I think you're absolutely right in that the Constitution does have those safeguards explained in your essay.

Where we might seem to differ appears to come down to a matter of how much one trusts the delegates to an Article V convention to abide by both the letter (explicit requirements) and spirit (implicit assumptions) of the Constitution. I have very little, based on the record of both Congress and the courts - and the politicians that fill them - of following provisions of the Constitution, implicit or explicit.

Another question still in my mind is about enforcement of Article V. For example, if the convention were to overstep its bounds and start repealing some of the Bill of Rights, or decide not to give the states their say, who brings the delegates back in line by enforcing Article V? And by what method?
62 posted on 07/15/2004 6:19:45 PM PDT by Wampus SC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
In this country, "marriage" has always been the domain of the states and should remain so.

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.

63 posted on 07/15/2004 6:30:27 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wampus SC
For example, if the convention were to overstep its bounds and start repealing some of the Bill of Rights, or decide not to give the states their say, who brings the delegates back in line by enforcing Article V? And by what method?

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.

64 posted on 07/15/2004 10:35:58 PM PDT by Publius (Mother Nature is a hanging judge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson