Is this Marriage Amendment unconstitutional? Question for DU lawyers...

[Skidmore]

As I understand it, the way this proposed amendment is written, courts would be prohibited from making any decisions around marriage in the future, should this monstrosity be passed and ratified. Now, is Congress setting about trying to usurp the power of the court by defining its job? How much of judicial power in this sense in defined by the constitution? Beyond that, will this be the only matter in which the citizen will be cut off from a hearing of his/her grievance before a court?

[SteppingRazor]

1. Your question doesn't make sense...

An amendment to the constitution is, by definition, constitutional. There's no such thing as an unconstitutional constitutional amendment.

[Skidmore]

3. I realized as I was trying to pose the question that

I might get that response but there's something really not right about the idea that you put in place an amendment which takes away from the judiciary and the citizen's rights at the same time.

[SteppingRazor]

7. It actually does make sense, when you think about it...

Supposing that, when they wrote the Constitution, they accidentally left in a loophole that allowed incredible abuse of power by one of the branches of government. An amendment could be written to close this loophole. Such an amendment would limit the power of one branch, but it would also be the righ tthing to do.

So, having constitutional amendments that limit power of gov't are perfectly fine.

And, as another poster pointed out, far, far worse amendments than this could be proposed and, if ratified, would be constitutional.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. By definition, any ratified amendment is constitutional

It would be perfectly valid to propose an amendment that declares America to be a fundamentalist Christian theocracy and outlaw, on pain of death, any and all political organizations except for the American Talibangelical Party. If ratified, it would be constitutional and would take precedent over any part of the constitution that conflicts with it.

[longship]

4. As long as the amendment process follows the Constitutional process

Any amendment is constitutional.

[Warpy]

5. Passing this abomination as a federal law would be

unconstitutional on several grounds.

However, amending the constitution automatically makes it constitutional, which is why the lunatics and bigots are shrieking for an amendment.

An amendment is the only way they can deny equality under the law to a minority they dislike.

[madinmaryland]

6. Any amendment is constitutional as is any

part of the constitution, unless it has been superceded by another amendment.

i.e.:

1.) the prohibition amendments.
2.) the items in the original constitution defining how much a slave counted towards a states population (3/5 of a person).

The only way to change it is to provide an amendment to the constitution repealing that part of the constitution or previous amendment.

[Igel]

8. A separate issue--

the one you pose is quite straightforward--is from Article 3 section 2 of the Constitution:

"In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make."

Does this usurp the Court's jurisdiction over certain things? Stay tuned; I don't think this clause has ever been used.