Rrepealing The 14th Amendment - US Constitution

[emanymton]

Help me square a circle. I find the Constitution of the United States of America an outstanding document; simple in its use of language, clear in its expressions and concise in its role.

I am not a lawyer. People are trying to make an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which has me confused. Currently, people are trying to amend the Constitution with the following:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups"


In the 14th amendment to the constitution, it states, “... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

How can we the people have one amendment standing in opposition to another? Will we the people have to repeal the 14th amendment before the latest amendment can be passed?


Bush Lied, People Died, Media Cheered

[demnan]

1. Good point

why not just repeal the constitution and institute Republican Marshall Order now.

Why wait till after the election.

[LiberalFighter]

2. How about the 1st Amendment?

The law would also be in violation of the 1st in regards to creating a law to support religious views.

[Streetdoc270]

3. wow

Makes you think... I had not even considered that. Using the same line of thought then the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional based on the 14 Amendment. Why hasn't any groups challenged this act on these merits?

[K-W]

6. Challenging something requires a test case.

The defense of marriage act also violates full faith and credit, but it cannott be tested until someone takes legal action based on it. It should come soon, but we might have an ammendment first.

As far as the ammendment, the contradiction will be something that the supreme court will need to draw a line for. Ammendments cannott be declared unconstitutional.

[FreeperSlayer]

4. What they want....

..is far, far worse than an additional amendment.

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/000278.html

[Gasolinedream]

5. I am angry...

that Shrub for Brains wants to get an amendement passed that does in fact constrict citizens and even more importantly has no place in a Constitution. The Constitution protects us from the government and provides us with rights. There is nothing in it about religion, morality, personal preferences, etc. The abolition of slavery you could possibly argue is morality based however it really just allows people to have equal rights. Prohibition limited what people could do based on some people's "moral" views. Guess what--Disaster struck. I am so P.O.'d about this considered "amendment". I really hope this blows up in the chimp's face. Any of the more moderate repugs and anybody who considers themselves a libertarian must be flipping out over this idiocy.

[ET Awful]

7. Technically they wouldn't be in opposition to each other. . .

The 14th Amendment specifically refers to no STATE making a law, not to federal laws or amendments.

Not that I like the idea, but that's the facts.