February 27, 2004

• The Consitution according to Bush.
• hahahaha. I love editorial cartoonists.
• This is a great link Sullivan. Thanks.
• Sullivan and homunculus: great links.
• And, let's not forget that any amendment must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the states, and that process takes years. By the time push gets to shove on this, GWB will be suffering from senile dementia, but, in the meantime, he'll have impressed his fundy constitutients in time for the next election. Here's a chronology of the last amendment proposed (which wasn't ratified.) And, if this does make it to the ratification stage, it'll be up to us to stand up for our principles, whatever they may be.
• It'll be up to us vote the people who supported it out of office (but you're right--it'll never get out of the senate). I'll be really surprised if this shuts up Bush's base.
• path: amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, not two-thirds. Amendments need two-thirds approval from the House and Senate. So in any case, as you said, it's a long, difficult process.
• He has everything to gain and nothing to lose politically by supporting these amendments; he garners the support of his right wing base by paying lip service to constitutional amendments that he knows probably won't pass anyway, without having to take responsibility for its passage/no passage. It's an easy way, low risk way to throw his conservative base a bone.
• TBoneMcCool is right. 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states must appprove. The ERA had more support and didn't pass.
• TBone - 3/4 instead of 2/3 is even better. Thank you for setting that straight. (Yeah, I didn't refresh my memory with research, but at least I remembered that passage by the Senate isn't the last step.)
• "This is the way that Bushes run for president when they fall behind: They plunge us into culture wars."
• "By including a provision regulating the most intimate of relationships into the Constitution, the traditional analysis that the court has used to limit government power will be fundamentally changed and the right to privacy, if it is not destroyed completely, will be severely curtailed."
• The sooner Shrub is gone, the better. Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?
• Interesting link, homunculus. Let's check out what conservative blogger N.Z. Bear has to say about Andrew Sullivan. But I can't help noting that Andrew's intellectual flexibility seems to continually bring him nothing but heartache. Let's face it: the man has got a serious jones for abusive relationships. First and most famously, he's a gay man in the Catholic Church. If that isn't asking to be kicked around, I don't know what is. And now, Andrew is shocked --- shocked! --- to learn that George W. Bush is, in fact, a social conservative who doesn't approve of gay marriage. Andrew, not to be harsh, but, er, what was your first clue? Left-wing blogger Dimmy Karras made a great point about how silly it is for Andrew Sullivan to be shocked. ... confused by the appointment of renowned progressive John Ashcroft as attorney general. To put this bluntly: if you're a gay rights supporter who has backed George Bush thus far, you're a moron. Congratulations on seeing the light. Conservative and liberal bloggers are making fun of Andrew Sullivan. He's crying wolf now so he can get some attention. The fact of the matter is the guy is only concerned about his own self-interest. He wasn't saying anything about the Patriot Act and poor people with AIDS not getting quality heathcare. The guy reminds me of a moment in "The Wizard of Oz." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
• A great way to defeat FMA is by citing the 14th amendment. Even if FMA passes, I don't see it lasting long in front of the Supreme Court. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
• Tom Tomorrow also has a few choice words for poor Andrew Sullivan: Memo to Andrew S. All those people you've been giving your snarky little awards to the past few years, the actors and college professors and intellectuals and so on? All the lefties you've worked so hard to portray as small-minded knee-jerk opponents of diversity? They're the ones on your side, in this struggle for basic civil rights. Your Republican pals? The ones you like to pretend are so inclusive and tolerant? They think you're less than human. They think you are, to borrow a phrase, a useful idiot. It's been apparent all along that they'd toss you overboard at the first politically expedient moment--the only question is how you could have ever deluded yourself into thinking otherwise. You've been played for a grade-A chump, pal.
• Sullivan: can the court use one amendment to declare another amendment unconstitutional?
• Sullivan: can the court use one amendment to declare another amendment unconstitutional? Yes. The truth of the matter is I don't see a chance in hell of this passing. I remember women marching for the ERA and that didn't pass. No one wants this amendment except right-wing church groups.
• To be clear on this, folks: the U.S. Supreme Court has no say over a constitutional amendment. It's a two-thirds vote by Congress and a three-fourths vote by the states. End of story. The only way to overturn a constitutional amendment is with another constitutional amendment -- as in what happened with the 18th amendment (abolishing alcohol) and the 21st amendment (which abolished the 18th amendment). The Supreme Court's role is to rule on the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. But an amendment is not legislation and not subject to Supreme Court interpretation.
• 'Zactly. In fact, if an amendment was passed that said that the judicial sytem was to be abolished and replaced with trial by combat, then no court could do anything about it. 'Cept to rise in bloody paralegal rebellion of course.
• Santorum on the 700 Club.
• I couldn't find Santorum's interview on the 700 club, but I did hear in today's broadcast (Feb 27) the host decribing San Francisco as "in a state of anarchy." I can imagine how scary it must be - flowers everywhere, smiles, happy people - I would call out the troops!
• an amendment is not legislation and not subject to Supreme Court interpretation. Well, that's not quite correct as stated, T. The Court could surely rule on whether an amendment was validly made according to the rules laid down in the Constitution itself; in addition, once an amendment was validly made (and thus formed a part of the Constitution) it could authoritatively interpret that amendment. Although Pez's hypothetical is an interesting one.
• In every arguement against gay marraige I hear the phrase "activist judges", but no one seems to keen to define when a judge doing their job and practicing judicial review becomes activist. Does anyone have a firm definition or is activism defined as "I don't like that ruling?"
• I'm not quite following what you mean by "validly made," quidnunc. Any proposed amendment that gets two-thirds approval by the House and Senate and three-fourths approval by the states will be added to the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot repeal any such amendment or block any such vote on it. Those are the rules laid down in the Constitution (see Article V). In theory, Congress could introduce a proposed amendment forcing all Americans to wear tinfoil hats and hot-pink knee-high socks, and neither the executive branch nor the judicial branch could do anything about it. And if it got the required votes, it would become the law of the land. (I've already gone hat and sock shopping just in case.)
• I agree with the quidnunc kid. I can still see this thing getting challenged in the Supreme Court if it passed. If someone made an amendment that said free speech was not allowed and the first amendment was still on the books there would be a problem. Citizens would take it to the courts. What would really happen if this thing was passed is gay people would be marrying left and right. The government may not honor the marriages, but they (Bush) would not take legal action to stop it. Which means the whole thing is a joke. Does anyone in San Francisco care what is coming out of Arnold's mouth?
• Tbone: Hi. I was just taking issue with one of your phrases I yanked - cruelly, unforgivably - from its context. Of course, as you point out, the Court does not hinder the process of the various legislatures of your country enacting any statutes they might wish. However, once a Constitutional Amendment was passed, the Court would have a role in its interpretation. Re: the "validly passed" bullshit I wrote: you can imagine some bizarre situation wherein there was a controversy over (let us imagine) whether a particular State legislature had the necessary quoram to approve an amendment. We can imagine a situation in which the contentious issue was brought before the Court, and the Court was asked to rule on whether, in fact, such amendment had the proper "approval by the House and Senate and three-fourths approval by the States". A fanciful situation I agree. But we might admit the possibility. Anyway - my comment is all off topic to your point: and thus to confusing irrelevance I plead guilty! a proposed amendment forcing all Americans to wear tinfoil hats and hot-pink knee-high socks Be still my beating heart ;)
• Atrios has a post on this. He makes a a argument simular to TBoneMcCool.

  Kudos to Mark Dayton for coming out against the FMA, though his description of the amendment as being "unconstitutional" isn't really correct. What it does, like any amendment, is change the constitution. In theory, we could pass an amendment which repealed the first ten amendments, eradicating the Bill of Rights.

  I think it is hard to take away rights and not have the America people bitch. Liberals and conservatives are coming down on the Patriot Act. Who would imagine the ACLU and Bob Barr joining forces together?
• Matt Welch has some interesting thoughts.

  So, amending the Constitution to shut down the possibility of gay marriage constitutes a "substantial political debate"? Issuing a centralized government diktat to all 50 states is the best way to avoid having rules "dictated to us"? At least she's 100% confident of her dear president's beliefs and motives. Must be soothing

• "Today I announce that I have reversed my position and come out in full support of gay marriage ... particularly between passionate females."
• I just read that. Fantastic. Also, the new style on McCain's MySpace looks very hastily thrown together.
• That was hilarious. Somebody put that on the 'firc the other day. It is the perfect, legal, publicly humiliating hack.