Reply #4: He's consistent. If * doesn't get his way, he'll try another route to get [View All]

[no_hypocrisy]

it.

Example: Congress was highly ambivalent to say the least with regard to approving *'s choice to fill vacancies on the federal circuit courts, Charles Pickering and William Pryor. Rather than withdraw their names and putting up less partisan judges, * appoints them, even for the end of this year, while Congress is in recess and bypasses the will of the people (yeah, yeah, I know . . . ) and makes sure that what he wants, he gets.

Now, it has to be a constitutional amendment. Why such a severe process? Because any other legislation by Congress, a state, etc. with regard to a ban on gay marriage, etc. would be shot down as unconstitutional because it so blatantly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution. You simply can't discriminate against a social or ethnic group by passing a law that places a burden on the members of that group, especially when it involves a civil right such as the right to marry.

The only way to pass a law that is unconstitutional is to incorporate it into the Constitution. You could technically and legally destroy American democracy one brick at a time by passing constitutional amendments that invalidate clauses in the body of the Constitution and/or its Amendments. That's why the Founders made the process of amending the Constitution so burdensome and onerous. It's supposed to be immune to the immediate passions of the masses.

That is, unless you have an uninformed and apathetic citizenry. So I guess we don't have anything to worry about .