Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

February 10, 2005

Our pliable Constitution

From The Christian Post:

The Virginia House approved a constitutional amendment measure to define marriage as between a man and a woman only on Tuesday, a day after a similar resolution easily passed in the state Senate.

Several problems though: Any single, Liberal, activist judge can bypass the elected representatives of the people of Virginia and toss the new amendment out, even though it is an amendment. Remember these are Liberals we are talking about, the law, to them is simply a tool to bend and twist to their will..

Second, there still remains the nagging problem of the US Constitution which says in Article IV, section 1, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” I know that the government is in the habit of ignoring the Constitution when it finds it inconvenient (as in the case of Timothy McVeigh's trial unconstitutionally being held outside the state in which the crime occurred), but eventually Liberals will use this to try to force all states to allow homosexual marriages. They're only holding back now to make sure they get enough states to make the plan work easier once they do decide to lower the boom.

Posted by Jack Lewis at February 10, 2005 09:25 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Several things wrong with this post: first, a court can't invalidate its constitution unless there's a federal right at stake. So your sky-might-fall commnent is ill-considered. If I were you, I'd have some idea of how courts and the legal system works before discussing these issues.

Second, what liberals are trying to invalidate DOMA via the FF&C clause? As far as I know, even gay legal groups are staying away from those cases, since they're aware of two things: first, they'll lose; second, victory would trigger backlash.

So again, who are these liberals of whom you speak? I don't want random, lone wolves. You clearly meant to implicate dominant thought, so I expect some good examples.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 10, 2005 11:34 PM

State constitutions are beneath the authority of the US Constitution and the US Constitution has been definds as meaning anything any activist judge decides on a whim it might mean, so yes, some activist judge could easily throw out a state amendment.

Liberal activist judges have been in the news legislating from the bench and tossing out Defence of Marriage laws left and right.

Posted by: Jack at February 12, 2005 10:58 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.