If you could change the Constitution...

Got a good chuckle on that one.

BTW, I would Amend it to say that James Reed is the uncontested, never-ending, Supreme ruler of the country. Of course, that's just me.

 

I would make the 2nd amendment crystal clear. It can be interpretted as no restrictions at all, or it can be interpretted as only the "well-regulated militia" has this right.

 

The framers of the Consitution never dreamt that was necessary. It may be too late, (now don't yell at me, I am majorly anti-gay rights) but maybe we ought to start now moving to insure marriage is only between two people, no animals, no robots, and only 2.

 

I would leave the constitution the way it is. It works great.

 

'maybe we ought to start now moving to insure marriage is only between two people, no animals, no robots, and only 2. "
Very wise indeed.
Finally putting in place the ERA amendment of 1972 also wouldn't hurt.

 

One way you know the Constitution was well-written, is that it makes all the right kinds of people hyperventillate.

 

So if you think the Constitution works, you're a liberal?? Oh, please! What a cheap and baseless shot, meant to do nothing but discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

Uh, who's "you guys"? I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate conservative. (which, to right wing conservatives, is a liberal )

 

Though I made 2 suggestions, the US Constitution is the most incredible man-written document ever composed IMHO.

 

Who gets to define the "right kind of people"???? I think the hyperventilation comes from those who see the constitution being often ignored or changed to fit a particular viewpoint.

 

Personally, I don't think it should be necessary to amend the constitution...and it wouldn't be if amendment were not occurring by judicial fiat.

Who would ever have thought that the words of the Fourteenth Amendment protected the "right" to an abortion? Certainly not the people who overwhelmingly criminalized it whent he amendment was ratified. (There are problems with all the civil rights amendments that folks don't generally like to go into...such as some of their not being ratified by a supermajority of northern/unionist states and the requirement that they be ratified before "reconstruction" was brought to an end in the South.) To take an amendment that was initially ratified in this manner and then expand it far beyond what its drafters could ever have imagined...seems ludicrous to me.

I actually would like to leave domestic relations laws to the states as a component part of federalism. Federal laws governing ERISA, social security, and other federal benifits, however, can take into account whether a particular jurisdiction has a marriage law which is contrary to public policy. And it would be very reasonable to permit states to deny recognition to "marriages" which are contrary to the particular state's public policy (and, incidentally, to all reasonable Judeo-Christian thinking).

Maybe there is something wrong with my outlook on things, but it amuses me that ridiculously liberal states such as Massachusetts adopt laws which are so contrary to mainstream American thought. This really harms the Democrats on the national level. Is there any hope for Howard Dean, who signed a civil union bill, in the South? I think not.

 

Those who are adept and those who are sinister?

 

From the right,

I agree with you. Scalia is almost always right.

Scalia's tenure on the SC stands for two things:

1. New appointments should be conservative academics who have conclusively demonstrated their literalness and conservatism in academic writings.

2. Academics are much less likely than statesmen or politicians, or even state judges to change their views when appointed to the Court.

One thing to remember: most states elect their supreme court justices. Stating that ambiguous language grants homosexuals the same rights as regular folks with regard to the institution of marriage sounds like a really good way to lose the next election and (if the law allows) to possibly get recalled.

 

Just a brief history lesson:

Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion. Rather, it limited the states powers to regulate it across the board. Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law was said to have been an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, unconstitionally vague (the ground used in Blackmun's first draft of his opinion), a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people). The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives). Deciding HOW to protect the right to an abortion proved as difficult. Roe's trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable. Prior to Roe v Wade, laws varied from state to state, though many states had laws that regulated abortion in the same manner as Roe v Wade. (Now, if the federal government were to place limits on abortion, then that would be constitutional, because a person's rights would not vary from state to state).

In the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court added an additional caveat: Does the regulation in question place an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion? Using this new test, courts have upheld some abortion regulations (such as 24-hour waiting periods) while striking down others.