Posted on 08/02/2015 6:31:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
How about letting States ban no-fault divorce?
What good are new Constitutional amendments if current ammendments aren’t being followed?
You just gotta love a defeatist ...
All you need is one Chief Justice with something to hide.
And a diabolical President who is allowed to hang it over his or her head.
I’ve always thought that proposed amendments to the Constitution are a silly issue to debate in a Presidential election, considering that the President has no role in the process.
You take all avenues within the framework of the constitution as part of the process of correcting the problems.
Those that think that you can just jump that because it’s “not going to work” and go into secession, or some sort of shooting war, have decided to forsake the very document they claim to revere, out of expediency and have not forfeited all of the moral and legal high ground.
I’ve been making this point for some time. Supporting an amendment is just a way for pols to pretend they are doing something about the out of control judiciary. Anyone as smart as Cruz knows it won’t happen, and it’s unnecessary. Congress has constitutional power to limit SCOTUS jurisdiction by any “exceptions” and “regulations” they choose to enact. That’s a much easier row to hoe than passing an amendment. If any of them were serious about it, they would be working for that rather than an amendment they know will never pass.
That, and we now know who he is trying to scuttle.
Mentions Cruz once after a litany of other candidate posits, but posts a picture of Cruz as the headliner.
Transparent projection much?
Yeah. In a sane world.
There's ALREADY an Amendment that allows states to ban same-sex marriage. It's the Tenth Amendment.
The states delegate power to the federal government, not the other way around.
Read post #11. I don't know who that Texas Eagle guy is but that is one of the most intelligent posts I've ever read on FR.
Or anywhere for that matter.
Saying they want an amendment is the ultimate playing to the crowd lip-service. It’s even more pathetic lip-service if they’re already in Congress. About 100 amendments a year get proposed, and every couple of decades one even gets out of committee. Any candidate who says they want an amendment is really saying “I want credit for fighting this, but I don’t actually want to fight it”.
Not just that, but perhaps the Article V approach to an Amendments Convention, with the specific stated purpose to limit the feral government.
The writer's mention of the amendment that Cruz was suggesting is perhaps the only one of the crop that is intended thru the Art V mechanism. All the others, the presumption is of using the Congress-initiated mechanism.
Interesting alone that the author does not even make any distinction between the two mechanisms, nor mention Art V in the first place.
phoney amendments like the 16th and 17th?
The President has the bully pulpit.
Not to mention the power of the VP in congress.
Yeah
1)A balance budget amendment very nearly passed Congress, failed by 1 vote in the Senate I believe with 1 RINO voting no. Passing it is not an entirely unrealistic goal.
2)GW Bush supported an amendment to ban gay marriage, such an amendment could have passed in 1995 maybe but the time it was proposed, it was too late. Scott Walker supports an amendment to basically reinstate the defense of marriage act. Sadly even amendment will not pass now, but it certainly could have during the W Bush administration if anyone had the foresight to realize the damned court would toss out DOMA.
I would be quite content to leave the supreme court alone if we threw out the 17th amendment and returned that power to the states.
We would probably be a lot closer to 80 GOP senators in the senate.
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.