Amending the Constitution... Something To Think About

[lucky_bunni]

A quote from the Washington Post:

Democrats said opening the proposed amendment to changes could open the Constitution itself to other amendments ranging from campaign finance to flag burning.

"We're treating it like just another little old amendment," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said of the GOP demands for separate votes on each version. "This is an amendment that will be added to a document that is precious, that we treasure, that we ought to have respect for."

Hmm, sure, lets go ahead and open this can of worms.

 

[Eeyore1954]

What is he talking about?

 

[shortbun]

Where ya been Eeyore? The proposed amendment that will
be voted on tomorrow is to ban same sex marriage. Much other legislation has been tabled and this proposed Constitutional
ammendment has been made top priority. I'm calling my senators and representatives. I hope every supporter of less government
and every protector of the Constitution of the United States does
the same. Emotional/religious opinion does not belong as an ammendment to our constitution regardless of where you stand
on this issue.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Thanks ... that I knew about ... and I finally found this reference on an article on FoxNews.

Actually, I am surprised at the hoopla over this. The proponents of the FMA don't have anywhere near the 67 votes required to pass it in the Senate. Even if they did, it'd still require a 2/3 vote in the House and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. The likelihood of this being added to the Constitution is very remote.

Sen. Daschle's comments are expected with one is placed in a lose-lose situation. Vote for the amendment and lose the votes of those for gay marriage; vote against it and get painted as a left-wing liberal who doesn't support marriage and family values.

Gotta love election year politics.

 

[Grog]

Actually, I am surprised at the hoopla over this. The proponents of the FMA don't have anywhere near the 67 votes required to pass it in the Senate. Even if they did, it'd still require a 2/3 vote in the House and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. The likelihood of this being added to the Constitution is very remote.

That's something most people don't seem to grasp. Amending the constitution is not an easy process. Since 1789 there have been almost 10,000 proposed amendments, with only 27 being added to the constitution.

 

[peachgirl]

Vote for the amendment and lose the votes of those for gay marriage; vote against it and get painted as a left-wing liberal who doesn't support marriage and family values.

Which might just explain why this ridiculous amendment is even being proposed.

Bush is in a win/win situation, or so he thinks. He backs this amendment, which he knows won't ever pass so he doesn't have to really worry about screwing around with the constitution and he gets the support of the right wing extremists he desperately needs in order to win the election.

The only problem I see for him is there's more than a few moderate Republicans and swing voters who don't look favorably on a politician so willing to change our constitution just so he can make his base happy.

Gotta love election year politics.

Agreed.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Grog
That's something most people don't seem to grasp. Amending the constitution is not an easy process. Since 1789 there have been almost 10,000 proposed amendments, with only 27 being added to the constitution.

This is why I was so amazed watching the outcry on the news last night. One would get the idea from some of the reports that all the gov't. needed was 51 votes and wham, bam -- Constitution modified. And Sen. Daschle's comments are even more amazing ... does he not understand the process involved in amending the Constitution?

Then I heard Sen. Hatch being quoted as saying that the Senate needs to vote on these amendments "because every American needs to be able to vote on these issues." Huh? Since when does every American get to vote to ratify a Constitutional Amendment?

Did I fall asleep in a cave and wake up in some alternate reality?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Which might just explain why this ridiculous amendment is even being proposed.

Bush is in a win/win situation, or so he thinks. He backs this amendment, which he knows won't ever pass so he doesn't have to really worry about screwing around with the constitution and he gets the support of the right wing extremists he desperately needs in order to win the election.

The only problem I see for him is there's more than a few moderate Republicans and swing voters who don't look favorably on a politician so willing to change our constitution just so he can make his base happy.

w should also be advised that while a large section of the population agree with him that marrage "should" be between a man and a woman, the vast majority of Americans do not favor amending the Constitution.

 

[faithinkarma]

Actually, I am surprised at the hoopla over this. The proponents of the FMA don't have anywhere near the 67 votes required to pass it in the Senate. Even if they did, it'd still require a 2/3 vote in the House and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. The likelihood of this being added to the Constitution is very remote.

Which certainly begs the question, why do it? Why use up valuable time and resources on a no win proposition, when clearly there are more important matters that one might hope would take precedence. Why indeed if not for the reasons peachgirl suggests?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
This is why I was so amazed watching the outcry on the news last night. One would get the idea from some of the reports that all the gov't. needed was 51 votes and wham, bam -- Constitution modified. And Sen. Daschle's comments are even more amazing ... does he not understand the process involved in amending the Constitution?

Then I heard Sen. Hatch being quoted as saying that the Senate needs to vote on these amendments "because every American needs to be able to vote on these issues." Huh? Since when does every American get to vote to ratify a Constitutional Amendment?

Did I fall asleep in a cave and wake up in some alternate reality?

I think many people are outraged because something like this should never have reached the floor to begin with.

Am I worried about this amendment passing? Not in the least. It doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Which might just explain why this ridiculous amendment is even being proposed.

Bush is in a win/win situation, or so he thinks. He backs this amendment, which he knows won't ever pass so he doesn't have to really worry about screwing around with the constitution and he gets the support of the right wing extremists he desperately needs in order to win the election.

The only problem I see for him is there's more than a few moderate Republicans and swing voters who don't look favorably on a politician so willing to change our constitution just so he can make his base happy.

What saddens me is that I support Pres. Bush, but these antics (and there's no other word that quite fits and is printable on the DISBoards!) are just sorry, misguided electioneering at its worst. It forces Senators, some of whom are up for reelection, into untenable positions that cannot be easily explained back home. Sure, I'd like to see the Republicans retain control of the Senate or even add a few seats.

But let's do it LEGITIMATELY and not be engineering some election year nonsense like this. Each party should be able to campaign on real issues, not this mockery of family values.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I think that Bush is wrong for wanting to amend the constitution over this issue. Thats putting it nicely! Especially since the constitution is so dificult to amend.

Another reason to vote for Kerry!

 

[Maleficent13]

I was just on a couple news sites, and apparently the vote has been delayed indefinitely because the Senate is arguing about how to vote (cloture v. not cloture). Does anyone else just feel like all the time these days?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
I was just on a couple news sites, and apparently the vote has been delayed indefinitely because the Senate is arguing about how to vote (cloture v. not cloture). Does anyone else just feel like all the time these days?

Yes, I keep hearing more and more conservatives saying I don't agree with him on such and such, but I'm still voting for him. I just don't get it?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Yes, I keep hearing more and more conservatives saying I don't agree with him on such and such, but I'm still voting for him. I just don't get it?

Not that hard to understand. It is possible to disagree with one or more positions that an elected official takes and still support them on many others. I have to find my own views/positions more in alignment with the Republican Party and President Bush than I do with any other (party or person). However, that does not mean I agree 100% with everything he or the party says and does and it does not stop me from expressing my disagreement (or in this case displeasure) with their positions and their election year antics.

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Not that hard to understand. It is possible to disagree with one or more positions that an elected official takes and still support them on many others. I have to find my own views/positions more in alignment with the Republican Party and President Bush than I do with any other (party or person). However, that does not mean I agree 100% with everything he or the party says and does and it does not stop me from expressing my disagreement (or in this case displeasure) with their positions and their election year antics.

Maybe it's just me, but it disturbs me that apparently the American public needs these antics in order to make a decision (albeit not a very well informed one). Election years just make me kinda sad, really. They just outline everything about politicians that are mocked (and rightly so) regularly. Whatever happened to be being a public servant?

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Not that hard to understand. It is possible to disagree with one or more positions that an elected official takes and still support them on many others. I have to find my own views/positions more in alignment with the Republican Party and President Bush than I do with any other (party or person). However, that does not mean I agree 100% with everything he or the party says and does and it does not stop me from expressing my disagreement (or in this case displeasure) with their positions and their election year antics.

I agree

I do, however, wonder why the republicans got this one so wrong. Maybe I am missing a "big picture".

Take Cheney's stance for example. It seems to me he missed an opportunity to improve his lot in the polls. In 2000 he was firmly against this. Just this week his wife came out and announced she was still against it ( their daughter is gay ). I personally would have gained respect for him had he stood up and said he disagreed with the motion, but would support his president. He has left himself open to being called a flip flopper, when he so easily could have made this a positive.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
Maybe it's just me, but it disturbs me that apparently the American public needs these antics in order to make a decision (albeit not a very well informed one). Election years just make me kinda sad, really. They just outline everything about politicians that are mocked (and rightly so) regularly. Whatever happened to be being a public servant?

I suppose I am too jaded by politics, but this hardly disturbs me anymore. It's politics as usual these days; an attempt to gain an advantage over an opponent using any means possible, no matter how absurd it is.

The fact is the proponents of the amendment in both forms knew full well there were not enough votes to pass it in the Senate. However, they decided to force the issue anyway. If they could not get an up or down vote on the amendment, they'd force the issue into the media spotlight, thus putting the other party into an equally untenable position of having to explain why they would not allow an up or down vote on the amendment. Different conclusion, but the same effect is achieved. Now "they" can go out and paint the dreaded Democrats as anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-values ...

Welcome to politics 2004-style. And it's only mid-July. I wonder how much lower we will sink before Nov. 2nd.

 

[Paradise]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I agree

I do, however, wonder why the republicans got this one so wrong. Maybe I am missing a "big picture".

Take Cheney's stance for example. It seems to me he missed an opportunity to improve his lot in the polls. In 2000 he was firmly against this. Just this week his wife came out and announced she was still against it ( their daughter is gay ). I personally would have gained respect for him had he stood up and said he disagreed with the motion, but would support his president. He has left himself open to being called a flip flopper, when he so easily could have made this a positive.

That's the way these politicians operate. They are all deceptive and underhanded regardless of party. George H. Bush when he was running for president the first time, was pro-choice. To be join Reagan as the VP, he quickly "flip-flop" to Pro-Life.

I have always believe that ALL politicians are crooks.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I agree

I do, however, wonder why the republicans got this one so wrong. Maybe I am missing a "big picture".

Take Cheney's stance for example. It seems to me he missed an opportunity to improve his lot in the polls. In 2000 he was firmly against this. Just this week his wife came out and announced she was still against it ( their daughter is gay ). I personally would have gained respect for him had he stood up and said he disagreed with the motion, but would support his president. He has left himself open to being called a flip flopper, when he so easily could have made this a positive.

My take -- it's someone's half-baked idea to (a) gain an ever so slight advantage and (b) hopefully tarnish the image of some Democrat Senators, some of whom may be running for re-election. While this may eventually backfire (and I almost hope it does -- it'd serve the doofs right ), it still puts the Dems in a lose-lose situation as I pointed out earlier. No matter what they do, they take a hit from some side/group.

In effect, it's a nearly perfect campaign ploy, but a completely dirty one. It's going to come back to haunt the Republicans, or at least bite them in their collective posteriors.