Skip to comments.Federalism and the Need for Moral Clarity
Posted on 01/02/2016 6:03:27 PM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands
In the debate over Ted Cruz's stand that the issue of the sanctity of marriage should be strictly left up to the states, those who favor a Federal Marriage Amendment such as Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator Rick Santorum are accused of wanting to trample on states rights.
The truth is neither of these gentlemen is opposed to federalism. Federalism is a great heritage of our nation. It allows different states to operate according to the dictates of each state's citizenry. Take the issue of gambling. My home state of Idaho forbids casinos but allows the lottery while our neighboring state of Nevada has the exact opposite stance, and our neighbor Utah bans all forms of gambling. There is no need for a national law or a national Constitutional Amendment on gambling. Each state can do as it chooses.
Yet our American heritage isn't limited to the Constitution. It includes reminders sometimes federalism is no longer a viable or an acceptable solution. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, slavery was legal throughout most of the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at caffeinatedthoughts.com ...
Saying leave up to states is giving up the bully pulpit of the president, and aburgating responsibility for federal policy. The states do not set federal policy—does the federal government recognize homosexual marriage. Seems like Cruz took the easy way out—now he can appease two groups, those that want it left to states where it is being usurped by state and federal courts but his constitutional rights folks thinks he’s siding with them, even if losing. And his homosexual money givers get him out of federal policy, leaving homosexual marriage and benefits in place. Who loses? Conservatives at all levels because homosexuality becomes the law of the land.
Well written and well said. Much better than the previous attacks on Cruz. BUT, there is a difference between Cruz and Paul. Paul thinks the government should stay out of marriage altogether. Cruz goes the states rights route.
I agree with the author of this column and obviously then also Huckabee and Santorum. The only thing is, I have been arguing this issue off and on for 30 years I guess. So I have a decent sense of what is more salable to the uneducated general public which is steeped in emotion and little reason makes it into their grey matter area. States rights will sell easier. Too much bogus groundwork has been laid by the left. Voters just auto-spout the phrases and have no idea what our history really is — or care.
If I am wrong and there is a way to do it the Huckabee way then count me in for the fight. This issue weighs heavy on my heart and I loathe the status of it currently.
At this point states rights would be a giant step int he right direction, even though as the author said, it would cause lots of legal disagreements.
Because the right has so utterly surrendered what was a few years back a bunch of wins — Federal DOMA, many state DOMAs and Amendments, lots of discussion of an amendment — we probably will need to be incremental.
The left was utterly hypocritical on the states rights issue. That is why we should be able to pull that one off. They sold most of their deviant issues by demanding states rights and then WHAM, they went federal. That hypocrisy together with the fact that many many voters voted for state amendments and then were robbed by the Supreme Black Robed Rulers that back that down should be very doable.
I still think because Utah had to give up polygamy that that core definition of marriage could and should be federal. I just think the other way would be easier.
A federal marriage amendment would be good if it could be passed. So would an amendment banning abortion. But the president would have absolutely zero involvement with that process. It would require 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass one. a president could support such a process (and I’m sure most of the Republican candidates, including Cruz would), but that is all they could do. But barring that happening, the correct Constitutional remedy is to return the issue of marriage and abortion to the states where they have always belonged.
As long as the Constitution does not give the Federal government any say over marriage, then Ted Cruz’s position is the Constitutionally correct one. But let no one think for an instant that Ted Cruz favors same-sex marriage. That’s absurd.
The task then becomes to amend the Constitution so that marriage is within the federal domain.
Either that or work within individual states to ban it there, with the federal courts kept out of it. The jurisdiction federal courts could be taken away simply by statute.
It seems to me that whenever it has been left up to the people of a state , they invariably choose to protect traditional (i.e. true) marriage.
No, it recognizing that the Constitution leaves such issues up to the states. Cruz has made his opposition to same-sex marriage very public, and I am sure he would work with Congress on any Federal policies relating to it (military, tax policy, entitlement, overturning the Oberfell decision), but the Constitution does not give the Federal government any role in state marriage laws, and there is no Federal marriage law.
It amazes me that people who claim to be conservative and outraged at Obama's contempt for the Constitution seem to want to elect someone who will treat the Constitution with the same contempt - just in support of their preferred outcomes.
Did you read the article? Slavery was a states rights issue too. How did that work out?
Tell me, why did Utah have to ban polygamy as a requirement before joining the Union?
The first Republican platform wanted to banish both slavery and polygamy. There is plenty of history on favoring Judeo-Christian values nationwide. The fundamental definition cannot be different in different states without chaos. The states can decide age. Everyone gets older so the difference is only temporary. Things like that. Not the fundamental definition.
I like Cruz. He does not go far enough on marriage. I’ll take it as better than nothing. It is different from Paul, better than Paul, and yes, he is against homo marriage. That is clear. I don’t think Paul gives a hoot.
The issue of slavery was resolved the proper Constitutional way - with a Constitutional amendment. If you can resolve the marriage and abortion issues with constitutional amendments, that would be great. But barring that, the Constitution does not give the Federal government any jurisdiction in those areas of law. SCOTUS has improperly claimed that power. Overturning the Oberfell decision would not outlaw same-sex marriage across the country - it would return the issue to the states.
What would you say if rape was deemed acceptable in certain states, but not in others? How about murder or armed robbery?
What are you talking about? Those are crimes which ARE defined by the states. What constitutes rape can vary from state to state, as well as what constitutes murder. And the punishments vary from state to state as well.
And just how does one return the issues of marriage and abortion to the states?
Congress would need to pass laws overturning Rove v Wade and Oberfell, and include a clause in each law that removes any jurisdiction of the courts to review the law. (That is constitutional.) That would return the issue to the states.
I no longer have much sympathy for compromisers on this issue.
Why is actually abiding by the Constitution now considered compromising? I thought we WANTED a government that followed the Constitution.
You’re off the mark. Abortion and “gay marriage” are gross, obvious violations of the natural law, and as such they are null and void, no matter who issued any edict or statute to the contrary.
Not a single clause of the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution can be fulfilled as long as abortion is allowed, or while natural marriage and the natural family are being destroyed.
Abortion and “gay marriage” represent an existential threat to this free republic. Not only does every level of government have legitimate authority to deal with that threat, they have a solemn duty to do so.
The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.
You are becoming completely unhinged with that argument. You are engaging in a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum, and your 'argument' doesn't even deserve the respect of a response.
I do not want a government that is immoral but cloaks its immorality in claims of Constitutionality.
Nor do I - but even more so, I do not want a government that ignores the Constitution in order to accomplish the goals of whatever group happens to be in power. In that direction lies tyranny.
Slavery: ended with a Constitutional Amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was good PR, and AIR it only applied to the rebel states. I think that’s the only element that made it palatable.
There is no problem with banning polygamy, “gay marriage”, or slavery. All that is required is that it be done legally and not by executive usurpation.
I agree that different marriage laws in different states would involve some chaos, but I suspect that there would only be maybe five or six states that would democratically adopt such a policy. They would gradually be forced to abandon it by their own citizens, or if not, the way would be open for a Constitutional Amendment. There is nothing inconsistent between limited powers and amending the Constitution. it is only a matter of what can be done, when and how.
Like you and Ted Cruz, I too think so-called gay marriage is an abomination. If it weren’t for the out-of-control federal courts we wouldn’t even be having this debate. But we are, so the only question is what is the best way to go about ending it. Presidential fiat is not the answer.
The answer will be found in the Great Unwinding or Unraveling - the undoing of the progressives’ 100 year muck-up of the Republic. It’s a big project and it will take time and a lot of work. But we’ll get there.
It the pope Catholic? Is Evil, Good? Is homosexual “marriage” rational? Is it possible or is it insanity and an evil, irrational use of the body-—which NO “Just” Law can promote.
Our Justice system is based on “Right Reason”-—not vile, irrational pagan, muslim ethics. Our Justice System is based on “...the Laws of Nature and nature’s God”-==not irrational base urges of satanists which are not only evil, but irrational.
We can NEVER promote homosexual “marriage” in a “Just Law”. It is an oxymoron and promoting irrational evil and insanity to children by pretending the radical Marxist ideology that males are interchangeable with females.
All Just Laws have to promote “public virtue” or else they are “null and void”. (Justice John Marshall). Ted Cruz who is rarely wrong is totally wrong on this issue, as is Scalia. Cicero stated that Just Law ALWAYS has to promote Objective Truth—ALWAYS.
There can NEVER be promotion of muslim ethics in our “Justice” (virtue) System which is based on unalienable (that means something, folks) NATURAL RIGHTS from God. Even Jefferson knew that slavery had to go because it was antithetical to Natural Rights.
Our Natural Rights are RATIONAL rights-—not base evil urges by irrational satanists. Sodomy is/was a felony for a REASON.
Yes slavery ended with a Constitutional Amendment. We need an Amendment for marriage, too. I don’t think anyone suggests executive usurpation. The others want an Amendment defining marriage while Cruz wants it left to the states and Paul wants the government out of marriage altogether.
These are valid differences to consider. It is wrong, however, to unfairly paint someone’s position as something it is not. Bearing false witness is a sin, too.
Not meaning to imply YOU were bearing false witness. I was just saying that some people have.
You’ve made it clear that Cruz is neither Christian enough for your tastes or Constitutional enough for your taste. So do tell genius, who is better on those two specific points?????????
I can’t wait......please do yourself a favor and proceed with extreme caution....
I didn’t say anything about Cruz’s Christianity.
I expressed disagreement with his stated positions on public policy.
If you can’t handle such disagreement, there’s nothing I can do about that.
so you avoided the question. Smart on your part.
You have indeed indicated the Cruz is not Christian enough in his public policy beliefs......so you are gutlessly hiding behind a distinction without a difference. And you’ve made it clear he’s weak on the Constitution in your book too.
So again, who is running that is better on those two criteria...YOUR criteria...the TWO CRITERIA you use to launch absurd rants on Cruz...WHO IS BETTER ON THOSE TWO?
Hint: NO ONE.....