Where do your Senator's stand on the Federal Marriage Amendment?

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
uh Flash? uh - I think you are not in Kansas anymore. WRONG THREAD.

Flash - My bad! I was in the wrong thread.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
Flash - My bad! I was in the wrong thread.

, no worries.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by khafley
The Government-Through Judges-Now Controls the Constitution


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/judges.htm

By Thomas L. Jipping
CNS The Free Congress Commentary
28 June, 2000

The Supreme Court has continued its scorched-earth policy of removing any public religious expression from our culture. On June 19, the Court voted 6-3 that a public school even allowing a student the opportunity to pray publicly at a school event is an "establishment of religion."

The Court long ago abandoned using the real Constitution in deciding such cases. The First Amendment, as you know, prohibits the federal government from passing any laws involving an establishment of religion. This means the federal government may not interfere with how the states deal with religion and may not itself create an establishment of religion. That's all.

While the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing religion, the Supreme Court now prohibits a local school district from even allowing students to offer a statement that might or might not be a prayer before a football game. How did we get to this point?

A majority of the Court now believes that they determine what the Constitution means. For 150 years, Justices believed that those who wrote the Constitution determined what it means. All the Justices did was uncover that meaning, apply it to the facts of a case, and announce the result. This approach kept the Constitution stable, and allowed it to limit and shape what government could do. The Constitution was law that governed government.

In the 1930s, Americans had a decision to make. The real Constitution, the one with meaning provided by those who wrote it, limited the federal government's power to regulate the economy. The Great Depression, however, created a national economic crisis and President Roosevelt promised a national economic response. Hence the choice between what the Constitution allowed government to do and what a growing number of Americans wanted government to do.

Roosevelt's choice was to get control of the economy by getting control of the Constitution. He appointed Justices who believed they, and not the authors of the Constitution, could determine what the document means. That switch in strategy turned everything upside down. The Constitution no longer controlled the government; the government, through judges, controlled the Constitution.

Once the rope connecting the Constitution to its authors was cut, the balloon was free to drift wherever the political winds would take it. Judges who could remove restraints on the federal government's economic power by wiggling a few words would certainly have no trouble with the First Amendment's religion clauses. Yes, the First Amendment says that it only applies to the federal government; judges simply found another amendment that applies other things to the states and said
it incorporates the First Amendment. Yes, the First Amendment only prohibits an establishment of religion; judges simply said that an endorsement of religion is an establishment of religion.

If the meaning of the Constitution is determined by the political winds of the day, you know what direction it will take today. That's why the Supreme Court first banned religious activities or expression which the government directs, went on to ban those activities or expression in which the government participates, and now has banned activities or expression which the government merely allows.

If judges can make up the Constitution, then judges run the country. If judges make up the Constitution, their values define our culture. If judges make up the Constitution, then we have only the rights they grant us. If judges make up the Constitution, we have no freedom.

Tom Jipping is the director of the Center for Law and Democracy at the
Free Congress Foundation.

I know! . It's not supposed to be this way however. Just because they are doing it does not invalidate my prior post. It is going to take US as people to take back what they are slowly taking away from us.

Interesting philosophy HERE . Get bak to me in PM or start another thread on the subject. There are others with more knowledge on the subject than I. I am just starting on it.

 

[Trinity]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
I know! . It's not supposed to be this way however. Just because they are doing it does not invalidate my prior post. It is going to take US as people to take back what they are slowly taking away from us.

Interesting philosophy HERE . Get bak to me in PM or start another thread on the subject. There are others with more knowledge on the subject than I. I am just starting on it.

Don't feel bad so am I. But very interesting!:cof:

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
I know! . It's not supposed to be this way however. Just because they are doing it does not invalidate my prior post. It is going to take US as people to take back what they are slowly taking away from us.

Interesting philosophy HERE . Get bak to me in PM or start another thread on the subject. There are others with more knowledge on the subject than I. I am just starting on it.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by khafley
Don't feel bad so am I. But very interesting!:cof:

Just so we are clear, I was meaning their platform and visionary goals.

 

[OCA]

If this is what it takes to stop this plague on society then so be it. I know New Guy isn't going to agree with me but it is clear that states are not willing to address this situation as recently proven by California(San Francisco) and Massachusets.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by OCA
If this is what it takes to stop this plague on society then so be it. I know New Guy isn't going to agree with me but it is clear that states are not willing to address this situation as recently proven by California(San Francisco) and Massachusets.

What it takes is IMPEACHMENT.

 

[OCA]

As we can see Gavin Newsom is still the mayor of SF so that is not going to happen. Heck whoever the AG is of Calif. I think still refuses to null and void those certificates.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by OCA
As we can see Gavin Newsom is still the mayor of SF so that is not going to happen. Heck whoever the AG is of Calif. I think still refuses to null and void those certificates.

I have to find something giving citizens power over the idiots sabotaging the Constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

If the Constitution is ammended then the will of the People will have ammended it. This ammendment wouldnt be necessary if the Courts and politicians, particularly the ones in California, honored the Constitution and the Law to begin with.

Also, i am going to point out that ammendment wont forbid homosexuality, it will simply protect marriage. gays will continue to do whatever they want to do. Its not limiting freedom because they are still free to practice their immorality and they were never free to marry members of the same sex to begin with so there is no way this ammendment can limit a freedom that never existed.

On a side note: i would encourage all the Pennsylvanians to call Senator Spector. He can use some reminding that he is up for tight reelection this year and that Pennsylvania Republicans arent thrilled with him right now.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
Judges can't write squat into the constitution.

Not legally but they sure are trying to sneak alot of stuff by the American people.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I have to find something giving citizens power over the idiots sabotaging the Constitution.

We have something. its called the ammendment process.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
We have something. its called the ammendment process.

No.

That is not for fixing injustice in the system.

You are WAY off.

Impeachment is what is Constitutionally stated.

Amendments are for clarification.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
No.

That is not for fixing injustice in the system.

You are WAY off.

Impeachment is what is Constitutionally stated.

Amendments are for clarification.

I'm so glad you posted that... we never got to have this discussion!!!

Sunday I'll be back on... I will pick up in the old thread.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I'm so glad you posted that... we never got to have this discussion!!!

Sunday I'll be back on... I will pick up in the old thread.

I was hoping that would give you an adrenaline rush!

 

[acludem]

By this count, there are nowhere near enough votes available. You need 66 Senators to vote for this for it to pass. Right now, there are 45 Senators opposed, leaving only 55 available yes votes. Unless then can get 11 Senators to change their position (and I doubt they can), this amendment is dead, which is fine by me.

acludem

 

[007]

I think this issue could be handled at the state level, but that is being nixed by liberal state representatives and the queer community that KNOW they'd lose if put to a state vote in most states.

 

[NATO AIR]

The Constitution is meant to include people, not exclude them.
I praise the senators (my man Chuck Hagel!) who refuse to allow people to write hatred into the Constitution.

If only these Christian conservatives put as much effort and money into helping people, rather than trying to punish them... the world could be better than it is today. Only God should have the right to judge people on something like this.