posted
He's going to draft a Constitutional Amendment baning gay marriage. Here's my letter to him, dated today...
quote:Senator John Cornyn 517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cornyn,
I am a Texas resident and I am very concerned about the probability of your leading an effort to draft a Constitutional Amendment “in defense of marriage.” Frankly, I can think of far better things for my elected officials to work on. I see the issues facing this country and the concerns of every day people as being very far afield from what you are about to undertake.
As a defender of the US Constitution I do not believe an amendment is the way to go. Basically, you appear to have taken the position that the so called “activist judges” are not acting within the bounds of their Constitutional powers. So, you want to alter the Constitution to address it. Who is messing with the Constitution, sir?
I realize this issue seems like “low-hanging fruit" given the poll numbers that have been reported to date. But I am writing to tell you that a plurality in polls is not enough to make it a good idea to amend our guiding documents.
The bottom line is that every minute you spend on this issue is a minute stolen from me, the person you are supposed to represent, and whose tax dollars pay your salary. The president has already wasted too much time on this purely social issue.
Work on something important. Work on things that will improve this country. Not on silly things that are just a passing concern. It does not deserve a Constitutional Amendment. Please keep in mind the last purely social amendment (Prohibition) and how ridiculous that seems in retrospect. We just don’t need it. Many of your constituents don’t want it. And you have better, more important things to spend our time on.
Please tell Mr. Bush, from a fellow Texan, that this dog won’t hunt. Surely he has more important issues to focus on as well. And please remember the Republican stance on keeping government OUT of people's lives. Seems you all have forgotten this basic tenet of the party.
posted
Bob, it's a great point to make. I was watching The Capital Gang tonight and Al Hunt went on a gratifying rant about putting "sexual orientation" into the constitution. (meaning it was ridiculous) He actually challenged Robert Novack directly, saying, "Do you really want to insert "sexual orientation" into the constitution?"
Novack pretty much sputtered in response. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey, Bob, saw the title and thought you were writing to me....(sniff)...haven't made senator yet, though, so I'll catch you later....
Posts: 676 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, how exactly is one supposed to overrule judges who can't leave well enough alone except by changing the constitution? It's the one check on their power.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Let's get this straight. When an issue is brought before a judge, it is precisely BECAUSE the laws aren't clear, or there are two conflicting laws. Judges aren't making up new laws, they are exercising the powers granted to them in the Constitution.
The phrase "activist judges" is a smoke screen.
Remember, the GOP loved the judges that gave Bush the election.
You can't have it both ways. Either we defend the entire Constitution -- including the parts that guarantee an independent judiciary, or we risk losing the whole thing.
I think the current GOP tactics related to abortion and gay marriage are the 2nd and 3rd most serious attacks on the Constitution in our times. The first is the Patriot Act I & II.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Bush is supposed to endorse a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage by the end of the month. It's going to be depressing to me to see who comes out of the woodwork in support of this foolishness.
On the other hand, I think it's going to be a great eye opener for a lot of people as far as who is socially liberal in their party. I think all those who vote against the amendment should start working together so they can plan strategies to increase support for this this important issue specifically and social liberalism in general.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disclaimer: I do not agree in total with every argument I present below, I am simply playing "right-wing devil's advocate."
Bob I see some things in your letter that are not going to convince someone who is a far-right conservative.
quote: I see the issues facing this country and the concerns of every day people as being very far afield from what you are about to undertake.
A lot of people would say that this is exactly what he should be working on, because the general decline in moral values in the country have led to those many problems you want him to be working on. Many people see protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman as essential to taking a stand against the general moral decline
quote:As a defender of the US Constitution I do not believe an amendment is the way to go. Basically, you appear to have taken the position that the so called “activist judges” are not acting within the bounds of their Constitutional powers. So, you want to alter the Constitution to address it. Who is messing with the Constitution, sir?
As pointed out in another thread, Congress can determine what laws states accept under full faith and credit. In a case such as this, with states each defining marriage their own way, a constitutional amendment settling the issue is something that does fall to Congress.
quote:The bottom line is that every minute you spend on this issue is a minute stolen from me, the person you are supposed to represent, and whose tax dollars pay your salary. The president has already wasted too much time on this purely social issue.
But for the Texans that do want to see this take place, he is doing his job - representing them. Not "stealing" from you, he represents every Texan, and it's unfair to characterize him as stealing from you just because you don't agree with this particular issue.
quote:Work on something important. Work on things that will improve this country. Not on silly things that are just a passing concern. It does not deserve a Constitutional Amendment. Please keep in mind the last purely social amendment (Prohibition) and how ridiculous that seems in retrospect. We just don’t need it. Many of your constituents don’t want it. And you have better, more important things to spend our time on.
Again, see my above statements. Just because it isn't important to YOU, just because you think it's purely social, just because you think we don't need it doesn't mean that plenty more of his constituents feel just the opposite. The polls support the fact that many of his constituents do want him to work on this.
In short, you haven't given him a reason not to do this except "I think it's silly and I don't want you to do it."
I don't really think that dog's gonna hunt, to borrow your statement. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, wrong or indifferent, Bob, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I just listened this a.m. to an NPR special on how a Texas politico (a lady) discussed how the right-wingers figured out how to link up with the mods and make their case for abstinence - in the process learning how to wield political power and affect change.
You go, boy -
ALL taxpayers have the right to criticize, question and prod their elected representatives.
I like to lean heavily on the "elected" part, myself - Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think he should send it - I'm a big believer in getting your voice out to your representatives.
I'm just playing the other side - and coming up with reasons why the letter is likely to be simply ignored.
I mean, I'm sure he'll get a form letter "Thanks for your input, the senator always listens carefully to what his constituents have to say" response. Probably not much more. Unless he sends in a lot of money or something.
Yeah, Belle is jaded with politics right now.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
We'd all get the same form response no matter our stance.
They (reps) don't change their plans or actions until they receive a certain number of letters, e-mails and phone calls.
Phone calls (and in-person) actually make the most impression.
Gather your buddies, Bob and have a letter writing party!
*Envisions Bob handing out lined notebook paper and stubs of pencils with worn erasers. Then envisions Bob and about 250 buddies hand-delivering the goods.*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think you'd be suprised by how much time your congresspeople's staffers spend writing letters...
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem -- there was a news story within the past week discussing the possibility that Congress might not be receiving mail at all - I'm not even sure they've resumed delivery of the mail after the ricin discovery. Unlike anthrax, there is no treatment for ricin exposure. They're rightfully concerned about the risk they're exposing interns to. (I guess they do most of the opening mail duty.)
In any case, there are long delays in receiving mail in Congress due to screening and decontamination procedures.
Maybe it would be better to mail the letter to the local office of the representative?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, you're right that his mind won't be changed.
The part that bugs me the most is that they spend time and money pursuing social issues, period. I don't buy the argument that the moral concerns are what is most important because I have examples of societies where they focus entirely on moral issues. Those countries are universally poor, repressive, and xenophobic.
I thought I was doing a good thing by NOT bring the moral issues into the letter because, frankly, I figured I would certainly never convince this person that it was just fine if gays get married. He certainly has already come out against it and expressed his "shock and horror" over the Massachusetts court ruling.
I do believe that he should represent ALL Texans. He is one of only two Senators we have. Of course, to me that means that he neads to hear more than the voices of his supporters. He needs to hear everyone in his state and that includes me. I acknowledge that a plurality of Americans don't like the idea of gay marriage.
That doesn't mean that we need a Constitutional Amendment. Nor does it mean that this is the most pressing issue for he and his colleagues to work on.
Criminy sakes, I'd be impressed if they'd just pass a budget on time and then go home.
I believe that if they do pass a Constitutional Amendment, it will be repealed eventually and another segment of our society will finally achieve rights denied to it by stupid laws that protect something that doesn't need protecting.
We have a crappy history in this country of crafting exclusionary laws that later generations finally correct. Why do we keep making those same mistakes? If it is wrong today for black people to be disenfranchised, or women to be disenfranchised, then it was ALWAYS wrong. What's changed except that "the MAJORITY" finally caught on to the injustice of the status quo.
I think that future generations will have a calmer approach to this and will think of us as poor benighted savages in comparison to their enlightened day. And then they'll have their own stupid social issue du jour and go through the same ugly arguments.
We never seem to learn the one lesson about America that matters most of all. That if any one of us does not share in the full freedoms of this society, then none of us free and none of us is right.
Inequality in anything as basic as this is just wrong and eventually people will see that. In the meantime, conservatives want to perpetuate a dying ideal for no good reason.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I think you should also include the last 2? paragraphs in your letter. It is very eloquent and to the point and emphasises the tenets this country is founded on.
posted
Note, to those who think that judges should leave well enough alone...you should be asking why these issues were brought before a judge in the first place, not why the judges make decisions in cases that are brought to them.
The judicial branch is part of our system of government. If their decisions didn't affect the interpretation of laws, there would be no need for them. It IS their job and they are doing it when the render decisions in cases like this. It is a common complaint from the losers that the judges have "overstepped their authority" when the decision doesn't go their way. But by virtue of the fact that the decision was given to the judges to make, it WAS in their authority.
Please people, learn to separate the sour grapes from the justified complaints. It's important that ever American know the workings of our government so that you aren't hoodwinked by those who have a separate agenda.
The judiciary is independent. That means that they aren't answerable to the Executive or the Legislative branches. It means that they can render decisions about what those other branches do and don't do.
If it weren't for an independent judiciary, we wouldn't have had a civil rights movement in this country. We would more likely have had a lot more bloodshed. Please think beyond the rhetoric of disagreement with a particular decision and see what real value of this institution is.
On the whole, I believe that the judiciary has been our most staunch defender of individual rights and fairness over the past several decades. The notion that we should stack the judiciary with people who think like the president did back in 200x is not just short-sighted but potentially destructive to our way of life. A weakened judiciary, or one that is answerable to a particular party would remove one of the important checks on activist presidents and legislatures.
I don't like every decision that has come down from Federal courts or the US Supreme Court, but I dare say that they have, overall, done a pretty good job of making it clear that the Constitution was not set up to allow excluaionary treatment of citizens. And they have helped to make sure that minority voices are still heard in this country.
I can't say the same of the other two branches of our government.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To quote Clarence Thomas, someone who probably fits the traditional definition of judicial activist least out of all the Supreme Court justices: "I think judicial activism is when you disagree with what the court did."
Take of it what you will Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I was going to place some quotations from your posts that appealed to me; then, I found I would be quoting much of what you say.
I enjoyed your opinions and not just because I agree with what you say.
Question: Is all social engineering by government a waste of time? Does the diversity of the population and the sheer numbers of citizens, to say nothing of its foundation of freedom, doom all such social restrictions by government to failure?
posted
I don't know if it's all a complete waste of time, but government is particularly bad at it. I think the laws in this arena have been particularly bad, but the exclusionary/restrictive ones have been the worst of the worst.
I think a case can be made in favor of Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare as at least decent attempts. The worst aspects of those laws is that they didn't have an end date, or limits on benefits.
Anyway, I'm not really expert on this whole thing, but I know that I haven't seen an attempt at social engineering that works.
Our tax laws are a great example of social engineering gone awry.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I better be careful with this line of thought because I am in a field that is funded by taxes and legislated by law: public education.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think breastfeeding consultants call that "latching on."
I've been sucking at the teet of government for years.
I don't object to government running things that it should run -- like public safety programs and education.
I just don't like Constitutional Amendments for what are transient issues that should not matter as much as people seem to think they do.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, that was a wonderful piece of work. Well said, well thought out and well put forward. Kudos to you!
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, Bob...let me put it this way. I'll leave out all consideration of judicial activism.
A court makes a decision that many people think is a bad idea. But the decision is consistent with the law, and the judges believe they did what the law said they must.
Why shouldn't the people who disagree with the decision try to change the law?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first time the Supreme Court used the Bill of Rights to invalidate a congressional law was Dred Scott.
It took a war and 3 amendments to overcome that decision. Whatever your opinion is on this particular issue, no one should accept the proposition that exercising constitutional powers to overcome judicial decisions is bad. It's as much a part of the system as judicial review is.
Most judicial opinions interpret statutes, and countless statutes have been passed simply to overcome a judicial interpretation that the legislature does not like.
posted
Thank you, Dagonee. I thought the court decision that I was talking most about would be obvious, but I had declined to mention it because I heard discussion of extending Godwin's Law to it.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I have found contacting congressmen and other elected officials works to get things done.
The Constitution of the United States is a beautiful document, mainly because it is uncluttered and powerful. I believe that a No-Gay-Marriage ban in it would clutter it up terribly.This was the argument that was used to stop the ERA from being passed.
Certainly those who believe such a ban is neccesary have a right to try and pass it. Just as Bob and I and anyone else out there has a right to stop it from being passed.
Blaming "activist judges" for the need for this amendment is a smokescreen, a lie. The real reason for this amendment seems to be a change in our cultural attitudes. These attitudes are becoming more and more Christian, in the Christian sense being centered on Love and the Golden Rule. Many of us would do onto Gay couples the way we would wish others to do unto us--that is give us the respect and legal rights that any dedicated couple, and many abusive couples, already have.
posted
I have to tell you, I do hate the "dog won't hunt" line. It sounds more like you pulled it off a movie than something you would normally say. Like you're trying to sound Texan, but are doing it by mimicking the movie "Dave" (which, btw, is a great movie).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dan, I think complaints about activist judges may be appropriate here. This is one of those cases where I agree with the results but tend to oppose the means of achieving them.
In short, I oppose the proposed amendment, which means I support the thesis if not the presentation of Bob's letter. But I do think criticizing judges as activist is valid, not a lie nor a smokescreen.
The problem isn't "activist judges." It is the fact that the existing laws are not explicit on this particular point. In that case, the court was asked to make a decision and it -- exercising the power given to it in the Constitution.
Then, you have to ask, does the law need clarification or should we just leave it alone.
That's not a problem with the judges. Its a problem for the Legislature.
The problem I have is that they (the Administration and portions of the majority party) seem to think that this issue rises to the level of a Constitutional crisis requiring an amendment to resolve it.
We leave lots of unspecified things in our Constitution because they don't need resolution. Certainly not resolution for all time, for all Americans present and future. That's what is being said when an Amendment is discussed.
I also said that I don't agree with everything that the Supreme Court and the US District courts decide. But I don't call them "activist" because that truly is a smokescreen. It was taken up most recently by the conservative right wing of the Republican Party because that phrase seems to resonate with a particular portion of their powerbase -- conservative Christians. And it worked for them for awhile.
Now, they are trying to test the waters and see how far that power extends. If they can ram through an amendment on this issue, look for a whole agenda of social Amendments in the near future. And I'm opposed to it on principal because I think the Constitution was not intended as a document to immortalize social mores of a particular instant in time. It was meant to broadly outline the rights and responsibilities of Americans and of State and Federal governments.
When you stray any distance from that, you run the risk of making the document a hide-bound collection of historical anachronisms that we have to go through a lot of pain and effort to undo. You make our government LESS responsive to the mores and concerns of the future. And, ultimately, it just works against good government in the long term.
A Supreme Court precedent is a lot easier to undo than a Constitutional Amendment.
And look at this another way. The reason people are talking about a CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment is because the Constitution is giving some people more freedom than the Right Wing political party wants them to have. By the Constitution's silence on this issue, the tendency of the high court has usually been to opt for the decision that guarantees the greatest degree of freedom to the largest number of Americans. At least that is its recent history. And there are those who don't like that tendency.
Fine.
But the current concerns of a right-leaning segment of today's population, even if they make up a majority, is NOT sufficient reason to alter our governing documents for all time and for all future purposes. Especially when the end result would be a reduction in freedom for some Americans.
The reason I say "especially" in that last sentence is that anytime you take away freedoms or redefine issues to restrict a segment of the population, you are running counter to the overall trend of our history and the overarching principles in our guiding documents. As such, you actually set up MORE ambiguity, MORE conflicts and ultimately invite greater and more far reaching and controversial court decisions.
If you are in favor of this, IMHO, you are in favor of making the Constitution divided against itself. We'll have to go to the Courts again and again to redefine freedoms and limits on freedoms for years to come to make this schizophrenic oddball insertion work within the framework of the whole.
It just isn't worth it.
Ultimately, it will be repealed anyway.
You'll just be guaranteeing a few decades of further pain for a productive, contributing segment of our population. And for what?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not a problem with the judges. Its a problem for the Legislature.
If it was a problem for the legislature I wouldn't have an issue with it. But a Supreme Court precedent (state or federal) about the constitutionality of a particular statute (state or federal, resepectively) cannot be repealed by the respective legislature. It requires a constitutional amendment to change. It's called the countermajoritarian problem, and it has occupied constitutional scholars since the country was founded. I'm not against judicial review - I would just like people to be aware of the problems it poses.
And how many times do I have to say I'm against the freakin' amendment...Since most of your post is about whether the amendment should be passed I won't comment on it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
