Bingo.

good point. but remind the liberals, a constitutional ammendment IS the will of the people.

Excellent post, Ace. Judicial fiat is the single greatest threat to representative democracy we face. Gay and straight alike should be alarmed.

get rid of the Kerry-Orange now!!!
it's making me "nauscious" or "however" I feel when I want to kill YOU!!!
I am not kidding this time!!!
GGGGrrrrhhhhh!!!!!
AcacCaacckkk!!
epp!

This is how they shot down Prop. 187 here in California. Despite a large majority in its favor the judges decided it didn't matter that the people of California wanted the major incentives for illegal immigration removed. They just couldn't bear the idea of deporting children whose parents were using them as an anchor to keep them in the country.

I'm beginning to think Gingrich had a good point about orphanages. If the parents knew they could be deported while their children remained the whole objective of parenthood would be greatly changed for them.

How about a constitutional amendment that bans a constituional amendment to ban the constitutional amendment to amend the ban that the amendment bans really banning the amendment that actually approves the ban on the amendment while allowing the amendment to ban gay marriage is unconstituional therefore it is constituional.

Liberals would be thrilled. This disenfranchises only the disenfranciser and not the disenfrancisee therefore prohibiting common racial/ethnic cleansig among Jews, who are gay but not homosexual increasing public awareness of an impending ice age without the ten commandments in public.

Liberal judges are a product of the guilty conscience syndrome. I am rich X I must be punished = protect the downtrodden at everyones cost.

I've blogged a couple of times on this topic. My concern is that we at least have to draw the line at "two consenting adults," or else amend the Fifth Amendment so that "spouses" in a polyamorous "marriage" can be compelled to testify against one another. Otherwise, I guarantee you we'll someday see criminal gangs and/or terrorist cells claiming (and producing documentation) they are all "married." To one another.

Ace:

Shame on you. You are guilty of exactly the same sort of logical inconsistency of which you accuse JFK the Lesser. To wit: "...even the actual constitution can be disregarded by partisan judges as 'unconstitutional'" - so the only answer is to amend the Constitution so those partisan judges can then disregard the new amendment as unconstitutional! What??!!

Yes, I know your references were to state judges ignoring state Constitutions, but there is no reason to think that rogue judges will have any more respect for the federal Constitution than for state ones, is there?

Now I know that this queer marriage business is an atrocity, and has to be turned back. (And yes, I will use the term "queer" rather than "gay". "Gay" means happy, bright, cheerful, full of life, etc, which the queer extremists are decidedly NOT. And if the term "queer" is OK for use in the titles of TV shows [e.g. Queer Eye...] or for university departments of Queer Studies, then clearly it's OK for general conversation.)

But the idea of amending the Constitution is the wrong solution simply because it addresses the wrong problem. You yourself complain of judges ignoring the Constitution, and THAT is the problem - rogue judges disregarding the law, and substituting their own preferences for it. And the solution to the problem is to deal with it at source - by getting rid of the rogues, whether they be in Massachusetts or Louisiana or wherever.

And you are lucky in the US in that you can do such a thing (unlike we poor serfs here in Canuckistan), since your laws provide for a thing called impeachment. If Mitt Romney had issued (or called for the issuing of) Articles of Impeachment the day after the Massachusetts court made its decision, charging the judges with usurping legislative prerogative (which is what judicial activism really is), he would have done the country as a whole a great service by re-awakening the people to the concept of a division of powers. Activist judges everywhere would have had serious sphincter problems to say the least.

And more than that, he would have dealt a body blow to the Democratic Party, putting them between the proverbial rock and hard place. What do they do? Supporting impeachment would do two things: put them on record as opposing queer marriage, and even worse, put them on record as opposing judicial legislation, something they would HATE to do since their sort love to use the courts to dictate legal changes that would never pass the legislative process. And opposing impeachment would alienate the large portion of the population who resent judicial activism, and result in Democratic legislators declaring themselves to be irrelevant to the law-making process.

No doubt, they would choose the latter course, and the judges (and their ruling) would remain in place. But even then, the legislature still has the option of overruling the court by simply re-confirming the existing law. And notice would have been served to the judges of the land.

So while I agree with the intention of the Constitutional amendment, I still think it?s the wrong answer to the wrong problem.

Cheers.

I actually think that the Louisiana judge was probably right, in this case. I looked up the provision in the LA constitution, and it really does prohibit amendments from dealing with more than one "object." The amendment, however, was designed to ban gay marriage and ban civil unions.

IM-unsolicted-O, LA Republicans need to try this one again, and get it right next time.

I have to disagree--you can be against something and still not think that it requires a proscriptive law. I dislike seeing a pregnant woman smoking, or a three-year-old eating a Big Mac. But should there be a law prohibiting that behavior? No.

This is a losing topic for any politician, which is why both Bush and Kerry haven't talked about it much. Bush has announced "support" for an amendment, but that's about as concrete as his "support" for the renewal of the assault weapons ban. He can say it because it will never happen.

Can I register my skepticism that the majority of judges on the Nevada Supreme Court are "liberals"? It does strike me as somewhat unlikely. Yes, this decision looks foolish (though I wish CATO had linked to the text of the ruling so I could review it), but judicial activism is as much a province of Conservatives as Liberals, hence the jab at "liberal" activist judges was pretty much uncalled for (as is calling Andrew Sullivan a liberal, I'm sure he'd blanche at the term!).

Meanwhile, if judicial activism robs the people of the right to decide in one direction, the FMA is a great a threat but in the opposite direction. One of the defining attributes of our constitutional scheme is a commitment to federalism (something that Conservatives used to take seriously). The FMA takes a national consensus and imposes it on possibly unwilling states or localities. One of the more odious aspects of the FMA, in my opinion, is that it interprets state constitutions FOR THE STATES, which is most certainly not a proper action for the federal government. I read the courts ruling in the Massachusetts Gay Marriage case and the one by the California Supreme Court in the San Francisco ordeal, and I think both decisions were justified by their respective state constitutions. Keep in mind, one of the purposes of a constitution is to keep certain rights and privileges beyond the scope of democratic action (or at least, traditional democratic action in a legislature). To quote Justice Jackson in West Virginia BOE v. Barnette "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections" (319 US 624 at 638). One can argue that gay marriage is or is not one of those "fundamental rights," but when the courts undertake that action, they're doing their job.

WOW!!!! This is a great website.

casino in linea

very useful comments - good to read

free government grants