Boston appeals court finds federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

Is there something you want to tell us?

Yes. It's very simple.

If you can't win a simple majority election, you most certainly cannot get a constitutional amendment through.

That's it.

Now if you can put together a consistent, preferably 2/3, majority in Congress for your position for several elections in a row, and elect sizeable conservative majorities in 3/4 of the state legislatures, then it might make sense to talk about an amendment.

Otherwise, it's like somebody who can't run a mile without collapsing talking about the marathon they're going to run next week.

Might be an entertaining fantasy, and I hope you enjoy it, but it has no basis in reality.

Nope.

But for what you prescribe to succeed America would have to undergo a vast cultural change in the direction of conservative values.

It would make as much sense to suggest you are engaging in psyops, encouraging the enthusiasts to invest their energy in a totally doomed to fail strategy.

Rather than concentrating on taking our culture back, which is the prerequisite to an amendment succeeding.

If you disagree with my analysis of how an amendment is not a strategy likely to succeed, why don’t you point out where my analysis is wrong, rather than attacking my motives?

Could it be because you can’t attack the analysis successfully?

How does living in a dream world, and attacking personally those who point out that it IS a dream world, help the cause?

If you disagree with my analysis of how an amendment is not a strategy likely to succeed, why don’t you point out where my analysis is wrong, rather than attacking my motives? Could it be because you can’t attack the analysis successfully?

I don't have to -- because our FRiend already did the work, on the previous post. These pro-marriage propositions keep succeeding everywhere they are put to a vote, and if marriage defenders start now, the issue can be decided with a constitutional amendment.

Constitutional amendments are usually ratified by the legislature .... but there is another way to ratify amendments and decide matters as The People, and that is the state ratification convention, identical to those that ratified the Constitution in 1788-91, and also, coincidentally, identical to those that passed legal ordinances of secession in 1860 and 1861, most of which were ratified by the People by plebiscite.

Homosexual activists can sway courts and traduce legislators and governors (like Romney); but they haven't succeeded, so far, in bullswoggling the People. Ratification by convention and plebiscite would be a valid way to keep a DOMA amendment out of the hands of society's enemies.

These pro-marriage propositions keep succeeding everywhere they are put to a vote

Righto, but how many succeed by a 2/3 or 3/4 margin? Even in a single state?

2/3 of the state legislatures can require Congress to call a Convention to propose amendments. Whatever amendments are then proposed (which may very well not be limited to the issues the original proponents of the convention intended) still then requires ratification by 3/4 of the states, either by legislature or convention, as directed by Congress.

IOW, Congress is still heavily involved, even if you go the Convention route.

Do you have any particular reason, besides of course wishful thinking, for assuming that conventions would be less susceptible to the same influences that mess up our elections to Congress and to state legislatures?

I refer, of course, to EGD's #24, which your reply did not begin to handle, as far as dissipating the import of EGD's point, that the people defend marriage solidly, whereas your argument rests on the reliability of elected officials' pliancy and availability to listen to reason, from the perverts' point of view, who come to the table well-prepared with vast flushes of ready political cash. Which is why, it is said by some, the Bush campaign in 2000 threw open the doors to the Loggies even as Karl Rove was lying to the Christian Coalition about the sanctity of marriage and Judaeo-Christian morality in a Bush Administration. (Bush then went out and appointed more homosexuals to high-profile jobs than any president in history.)

[Your #27] I will be highly surprised if such an amendment ever even comes to the floor in the House or Senate, much less receiving 2/3 of the vote, much less 3/4 of the states ratifying.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the Framers provided a way for the People to end-run a faithless body of legislators, both as to the writing and to the ratification of amendments to the Constitution.

Amendments only pass when they aren’t controversial. The system the Founders designed requires overwhelming public support both nationally and regionally.

This statement is incorrect. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were ratified over the dead bodies of the citizenry of several States, which were made to ratify them at gunpoint in a "reorganization" that was originally masterminded by the evil John Quincy Adams, who suggested civil war as a "way around" the Constitution, to obtain power over the Southern States without their consent, using the rubric of federal power to guarantee each State a republican form of government ..... after the federal faction's liking. The objectors being mostly dead on the battlefield, the amendments carried, except for Amendment 14, which is "deemed" ratified by the victors, and made so by the Army. Repeatedly. Down to the present day.

These are extreme examples, you will object -- but I will aver that they are sufficient to falsify your statement and overthrow its authority.

I would also assert that Amendments 18 and 19 also carried by very narrow margins and were not widely popular, so much so that the 18th, the Volstead Act, was repealed; but unfortunately, we are stuck with the consequences, probably fatal, of woman suffrage.

Yes. The People can send their eggs back by Plebiscite, and call new conventions until the matter is settled aright.

The Constitution really does provide, your rooting for the homosexuals notwithstanding, for the People to defeat the resistance of rotten-borough pols and intermeddling flaming pederasts.

Nope. 2/3 of the state legislatures must pass a resolution requesting a Convention to propose amendments. Congress then calls such a convention, presumably specifying how the convention members are chose, since the Constitution does not say. This Convention can can then propose whatever amendments it pleases, not just an anti-gay marriage or pro-life one.

Congress then decides whether ratification by 3/4 of the states will be done by convention (again setting the rules for choosing such a convention) or by state legislatures.

IOW, Congress and the state legislatures are heavily involved in this entire process. There is no "end-around" effectively provided in the Constitution.

Also, as stated, I fail to see why delegates to a convention chosen under rules established by Congress would differ greatly from congressmen.

BTW, I would cheerfully support any such amendment that gets to a point where it has a reasonable chance of passing.

Till then I will not waste my time on it, anymore than I spend vast amounts of time deciding how I'll spend the money when I win PowerBall.

I don't really have time to pursue this any farther. I envy you your delusions, but choose not to share them.

Have a good day, and good luck with your plans.

Nope. 2/3 of the state legislatures must pass a resolution requesting a Convention to propose amendments.

The People having the power of initiative and referendum, they can pass initiatives telling their legislatures, with the power of law, to make said application to the Congress.

Congress then calls such a convention....

You'll notice that this is "shall issue" phrasing; Congress has no discretion here.

... presumably specifying how the convention members are chose[n], since the Constitution does not say.

No, they do not, did not, and will not have discretion about the chusing, as Mr. Madison spelled it, of the members of the States' conventions, or of their delegates to the national one.

This Convention can can then propose whatever amendments it pleases, not just an anti-gay marriage or pro-life one.

Yes, correct.

Congress then decides whether ratification by 3/4 of the states will be done by convention (again setting the rules for choosing such a convention) or by state legislatures.

With the People looking down their throats and piles of Lugars and Bennetts and, presumably, Boehner and McConnell littering the roadside of primary-land, I don't think Congress would call the People out by flipping the matter to the state legislators, who, remember, sent the matter up to Congress in the first place under plebiscite.

I would expect the men's-room cabal to attack that process by litigating the state referenda on BoR grounds like they did Prop 2 in Colorado and Prop 8 in California, or possibly on narrow procedural grounds state-by-state, leveraging their money against relatively smalltime political grafters and bagmen. Good luck with that, when the matter at issue is a constitutional convention.

Have a nice day.

“Righto, but how many succeed by a 2/3 or 3/4 margin? Even in a single state?”

The average, if I recall, is 67.5%, with most of them passing amendments in the middle of the last decade. The problem is that some of the more liberal states passed them early on in the process, you would have to think if they would pass now they would do so by less. For instance, if NC had an amendment vote in 2004, no way does it only pass by 61% if you look at other southern states that passed one in 2004. Most of them passed in the high 70%-low 80% ranges! Hawaii was one of the first states, and it passed its amendment by 69% in ‘98. So it actually beat NC by 8%, but probably only because of the 14 year gap between the votes.

Freegards

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.