30-11-2003 08:46									#1
	Probably a silly question, but...(Imran, DinoDoc, MtG?) Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I was just curious, for any of you "legal experts", or other knowledgeable people out there, if there is any conceivable way to block a proposed Constitutional amendment using the Constitution?

Say, as an extreme example, a Constitutional amendment were to be introduced repealing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Other than voting the amendment down, would there be any way to block the amendment? If the amendment were to pass, would there be any way to knock the amendment down at that point (without another amendment)? Is there any way to apply a substantive due process argument to a case intended to knock down a Constitutional amendment?

Silly question, probably, and I rather suspect that the answer is "no", but I still thought I'd throw it out there.

And yes, my primary motivation is to think of a way to overturn a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and/or civil unions.

	30-11-2003 08:58									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How did I get into that group? Anyway the answer to your question is the one you expected. It'd ruin the fun of coming up with flag burning ammendments and what not if they could be stopped so simply.

	30-11-2003 09:06									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yeah, that's what I figured, but there's gotta be some creative way to prevent someone from voting in the affirmitive on a law that would create a serious impediment to individual liberty...just gotta figure it out, and I'll be rich

	30-11-2003 09:11									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Reasoned debate works well.

	30-11-2003 09:13									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Reasoned debate? What, in Congress?

	30-11-2003 09:17									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

No, the process is immune to prior constitutional restrictions other than the criterion for passage. If it passes and the amendment alters or abolishes previous amendments then the most recent amendment takes precedent. Alcohol prohibition comes to mind, that one attacked liberty in a most egregious way. Fortunately, most amendments seek to expand our liberties, not restrict them. But it is interesting how many amendments proposed by the GOP are designed to remove freedoms... The party of "liberty" sure has a funny way of showing it...

	30-11-2003 14:07									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: voting in the affirmitive on a law that would create a serious impediment to individual liberty

Liberty?

Be thankful that the law does not allow us full liberty. Otherwise we would still be hanging black people.

	30-11-2003 14:23									#8
	Got spare money?

quote: Be thankful that the law does not allow us full liberty. Otherwise we would still be hanging black people.

That's a strange definition of liberty you have there, hanging black people occured under slavery and Jim Crow... hardly examples of freedom...

	30-11-2003 14:24									#9
	Got spare money?

Why should my liberty be limited?

That amendment will seriously limit my ability to do as I please with my property.

	30-11-2003 14:29									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

IIRC, there's a provision in the Constitution which prevents an amendment which would deprive the states of equal representation in the Senate. Other than that, pretty much anything can be amended.

	30-11-2003 14:43									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Berzerker said it all. However, a new constitutional amendment is extremely hard to pass. The framers made it that way, and I don't know if we have enough people pandering to the religious right to pull it off. What I find scary is that I'm not sure.

The reason for this discussion is that under "the full faith..." portion of the constitution, any contract entered into in one state must be recognized by all others. This has many of you right wing types scared, because they only want state's rights for opinions they approve of. Under a strict constitutionalist interptation, which the right in the USA harps about, if any state recognized gay marraige, every state will have to, as marraige is considered CONTRACTUAL in nature (by the government). Unless a right-wing activist court with Scalia types gets appointed.

If it hadn't been for the new case on gay rights this year, with O'Conner being the swing vote (she was the swing vote on the 1986 case supporting criminalizing consenting gay sex, so don't think she's any heroine) in favor of it (5-4 decision) we could have had the macabre situation of legally married adults in Massachusets being arrested and imprisoned for illegal sex with each other in Texas. The American legal system, you just have to love it.

	30-11-2003 15:04									#12
	Support Apolyton

Well, I take issue with Berzerker's portrayal of the issue as having to do with liberty. How will the amendment endorsing traditional marriage limit the behavior of gay people?

	30-11-2003 16:14									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ben, I made no comment regarding an amendment maintaining the status quo of marriage.

	30-11-2003 21:50									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

Let's keep the gay marriage discussion to the appropriate thread - and BK, you still haven't responded to my last post over there.