PhotoDude.com

Reid, Just in case you didn't catch it, my post "Marriage Under Fire" which you linked above was pure satire. I wouldn't want to be accused of "blowing hot air."

Yeah, yeah, sure. The next thing you'll tell us is that your birthday is September 11. (I found your satire to be suitably prominent, and assumed others would as well).

Does a constitutional amendment even have to be signed by the President? I don't think so. It's over and beyond legislation subject to separation of powers. I don't think the Supreme Court gets to rule on it, either. The Court can hardly rule that a constitutional amendment is not constitutional. All the more reason this is preposterous grandstanding during a presidential election campaign.

Joel, you are correct, the President's approval or signature is not required: "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval."

I agree that an amendment would be hard to pass, but I think you're greatly underestimating the support for such a thing. Most Democrats in Congress would vote for it, because most Democrat voters like the idea. The tough part would be getting it past the states, but you're wrong to think it would have to go through their legislatures. When Congress passes an amendment they can choose to send it to the state legislatures, or they can send it to state consitutional conventions, whose delegates are selected popularly by district (exact methods vary by state). It's up to Congress, and if they want to pass the thing I expect they'd avoid the state legislatures for just the reasons you describe.

There's only been one amendment passed that restricted rights. The 18th.

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Below is a proposal for an alternative Amendment to the FMA. It is built partially around Donald Sensing's Feb 13th Alice in Wonderland posting. I sent it to all my friends. What do you think? ********** To all: I think the proposal of a Federal Marriage Amendment is fuzzy headed thinking on the part of Conservatives. The Constitution is about the structure of government, and limiting the powers of government, not limiting the freedoms of citizens. That has been tried once with Prohibition and proved to be a disaster. Gay marriage is only the symptom of the problem, not the disease itself. The REAL problem is a runaway judiciary who refuses to abide by the laws it ostensibly is dedicated to preserving. The proper Amendment would sharply curtail the power of the judiciary. I think a better Amendment would be to establish some sort of Legislative and Executive review similar to Judicial review. Judicial Review dates back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and is not a Constitutional power written in the Constitution. In response to that decision,Thomas Jefferson stated: [On the] "question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law" ... Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." [On the "ultimate arbiter" of the Constitution:] "The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal ... "The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. ... their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." "... our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide] [if] intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." "My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal." So according to Jefferson, each branch has a right to say what is, and what is not Constitutional. Since Judicial Review is not actually a power of the Courts according to the Constitution, I think an amendment more clearly defining how we determine the Constitutionality of laws would be preferable to the FMA. Obviously, Judicial Review has some merit. This need was overlooked by the founders. But if Judicial Review is going to be the practice of the courts, then it should be explicitly defined in the Constitution. In addition, since all Branches are co-equal, this amendment should include the powers of Executive Review, and Legislative review, and a mechanism for resolving Constitutionality issues when the three Branches of government disagree. I propose an advisory panel in the Administration to advise the President, and a Legislative panel in either the Senate or the House, or perhaps both. Also, if a supermajority of the Congress is instituted to override judicial "veto", then a supermajority of the Court must also be required to overturn lawfully passed legislation. The power to Veto legislation was given to the President, not the courts in the Constitution. And a mechanism for overriding that veto is in place. The problem is that there is no mechanism for overriding the "veto" of the Courts. This should be resolved. Then there would be no need for the FMA. The issue in most conservatives minds' is the runaway judiciary, not gay marriage. Even though I personally oppose gay marriage, if Californians, and New Englanders want it, why should I care as a citizen of another state. What I strongly oppose is the right of Californians and New Englanders to decide the issue for me without consulting me. Remember "taxation without representation." It is the judicial oligarchy that must be overthrown. Then we are free to make our cases to the public without fear of judicial fiat. I have no need to impose my views on others, regardless of how much I disagree with them. What I cannot stand for is others imposing their views on me. If the citizens of San Francisco want to all join hands and jump off a cliff to their doom, I think they are fools. But if they come to my home, drag me to the cliff, and forceably throw me over, then I strenuously object, and will fight them tooth and nail. Scott Harris