Question on Constitutional Amendments

[trotsky]

re: the one that's being propose to ban same-sex marriage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be the first Constitutional amendment to TAKE AWAY rights?

We've got amendments that extend rights to all races, to women, to younger people, etc. But wouldn't this be the first time the Constitution would be amended to make rights more restrictive? (OK, there was prohibition but we repealed that so I'm not going to count it.)

If this is correct, it might be a good selling point to the masses. "We have a history of amending the Constitution to extend rights to more and more Americans. Do we really want to change that tradition and make rights more exclusive?"

[mobuto]

1. 11th Amendment

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

[trotsky]

4. That's more of a restriction on the government...

thus a reinforcement of personal rights. "The judicial power... shall not be construed to extend..."

[mobuto]

13. No, its a restriction on the people

it says you cannot use the courts - "the judicial power" - to sue a state you don't live in.

[trotsky]

21. Point taken.

When you look at it that way, it does restrict our rights. Hmm. Seems odd; what would someone do if a neighboring state was dumping waste on the border where you lived?

[RobertSeattle]

2. It's a great argument: GOP wants to Restrict Freedom with this

The Constitution is for protecting freedom, not taking it away.

[terryg11]

3. won't the supreme court be able to strike this down?

I would imagine someone would either challenge it or think that it would hve to come in front of the high court in some way.

with the exception of Scalia, I think they would knock it down very quickly

[trotsky]

5. You can't strike down an amendment.

That's why they are created - to change the Constitution. By definition, any amendment is "unconstitutional."

[terryg11]

10. sorry, I phrased my question wrong

can't a proposed amendment be challenged in court though? Or is the judiciary wing of government left out of this process?

[trotsky]

11. Completely left out.

They could make an amendment stating that only straight white males are allowed to drive cars. If enough state legislatures ratified it, it would be come the law of the land.

[terryg11]

12. thanks

I never thought I would be alive to see this kind of shit from the government-even worse is that the american public as a whole seems ready to let it happen.

[bowens43]

6. No.

A Constitutional Amendment can not be struck down as unConstitutional.

[seabeyond]

7. do it without bitterness

and anger and have compassion and kindness as we ban gay marriage, bah ha ha ha

[Lone_Wolf]

8. As humans, do we really have a duty to follow laws that are unjust?

n/t

[seabeyond]

9. i dont

grinnin.......for a lifetime. just something in me i cannot do. you dont know how many tell me i must and i say huh uh i trust i can see right and wrong, and so far at 42 i do pretty darn good.

nope, i dont, and i have yet to get in trouble

i have had courage to stand up,......regardless of how uncomfortable it may be.

[callous taoboy]

15. Heard on the news

that it's very difficult to get an amendment to pass, and that it can take many years. The amendment related to congressional pay was introduced in the late 1700's and didn't get passed until recent times.

[LTR]

17. Here it is (Amendment 27)

Amendment XXVII

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxvii.html

[KansDem]

14. It was tried with the 18th amendment...

which was repealed with the 21st amendment.:beer:

Apparently, the GOP has not learned that (its version of) moral behavior cannot be legislated.

[LTR]

16. It's ultimately up to the states to ratify it

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[maggrwaggr]

18. it'll never pass. So everyone should just calm down

this is GOP bait, nothing more. Again they're defining the terms of the debate and we're letting them. :eyes:

Let's keep on the offensive re: Bush's constant lies and crimes.

[K-W]

19. Actually, I think it might pass

Look at how state ammendments are doing.

[trotsky]

20. True, I am afraid it has a good chance of passing.

Opinion polls run along the lines of 2-1 or 3-1 against same-sex marriage. (Which is why, of course, civil liberties should never be left to majority rule.)

[SaveElmer]

22. But..people opose amending the Constitution

Even though polls show alot of opposition to gay marriage, most polls show a majority against amending the constitution to accomplish this. Most people believe it should remain a state issue.

This will never pass...it takes 2/3 majority in both houses and 3/4 of the states. The vast majority of Democrats will oppose this, and I think some Republicans will too....itis purely a political issue.