Mark Levin’s idea for a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution may be the remedy for Federal courts’ intrusion into the area of marriage contracts, historically a state responsibility.
They are ignoring the constitution now, why do you think they wouldn’t ignore it after it was changed? Even that makes the huge assumption that it would be changed for the better and not for the worse.
>>a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution
So the same tyrannical majority who elected, and then REelected, Comrade Chairman Obumble will fix things?
Meanwhile the Romans 1:25+ clock ticks predictably toward the inevitable natural flushing of the cultural toilet.
Why isn’t a convention in the works. What is the delay? Who starts the ball rolling? We need to find out and build a fire under them.
The states should control almost everything. Its time to drasticly cut the handout group off. The Bushes , Obamas ect. You do that by cutting the fed to about 1% of what it is today. Hopefully the fed overreach is pushing it to that. Judges appointed by the feds have a conflict of interest. Major change with the way the fed works, its power ,must all.be addressed. The fed govt should not be able to spend us into debt making them and their friends wealthy. 99% of the power should be with the individual states. The states have to take the power over. Of course the feds wont like it, but that’s their problem.
The Constitution already has a remedy to stop judicial activism. Congress has the power to create a law that is exempt from judicial review.
You need 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment (which means 13 states can block one). Fourteen states have adopted same-sex marriage either by a referendum or by a vote of the Legislature.
Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
The Republican Congress can pass a bill tomorrow establishing regulations restricting the involvement of the federal courts in any aspect of law including its ability to overrule state court decisions. The Supreme Courts power to overrule decision of state courts is one it claimed and assumed. It is not a power delineated in the Constitution.