M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
Has anyone heard of Bush making any swoops at the “Marrige is between a man and a woman” ammendment agian or if the last time was the only? Thanks and God Bless.
- Status
N
Narcissa
Guest
I don’t understand your question–making “swoops”? What do you mean?
M
Mac6yver
Guest
Odd is it not. After the election all the talk of a a “Marriage Amendment” suddenly stopped. What is the definition of being used?
T
Thekla
Guest
swoop cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/oomacr.gifp)
v. swooped, swoop·ing, **swoops **
v. intr.
*] To move in a sudden sweep: The bird swooped down on its prey.
*]To make a rush or an attack with or as if with a sudden sweeping movement. Often used with down: The children swooped down on the pile of presents.
v. tr. To seize or snatch in or as if in a sudden sweeping movement. n. The act or an instance of swooping.
T
Thekla
Guest
Montie Claunch:
It’s a little early yet. The election isn’t until November.
B
bapcathluth
Guest
You are right on the money with that observation, Thekla.
G
gilliam
Guest
The president has been pretty consistant in supporing marriage as being between a man and a woman. I don’t think it has changed any. He has talked about it a number of times this year (I think some on this thread have not been listening to the President. 
)
Feb 15, 2006:
President Bush called on Congress to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap14.html
You can also search the Whitehouse site for more:
whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=630&ws=0&la=en&si=0&text=0&fs=&qt=marriage&ex=&rq=0&oq=&text=0&qm=0&ql=&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=1
)Feb 15, 2006:
President Bush called on Congress to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap14.html
You can also search the Whitehouse site for more:
whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=630&ws=0&la=en&si=0&text=0&fs=&qt=marriage&ex=&rq=0&oq=&text=0&qm=0&ql=&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=1
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
I know. I’m sorry. But, that is why I asked.(I think some on this thread have not been listening to the President.
J
Jay74
Guest
He’s still for it and encourages it, but it was defeated fairly easily in the Senate in 2004, and likely would be again. It failed 48 yes, 50 no, 2 not voting. Only on Democrat voted yes (Zel Miller), and I think 6 republicans voted no (including John McCain)–and should have been booted from office for it (just my humble opinion). Two very prominent senators refused to go on record with the issue–not surprisingly, they were Kerry and Edwards, who were seeking the highest offices in the land.The president has been pretty consistant in supporing marriage as being between a man and a woman. I don’t think it has changed any. He has talked about it a number of times this year (I think some on this thread have not been listening to the President.
Feb 15, 2006:
President Bush called on Congress to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap14.html
You can also search the Whitehouse site for more:
whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=630&ws=0&la=en&si=0&text=0&fs=&qt=marriage&ex=&rq=0&oq=&text=0&qm=0&ql=&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=1
If catholics and evangelicals alone (not to mention every other group that is overwelmingly against gay marriage) would start pressuring our congressmen, we are a solid majority of the electorate and could force the issue.
Maybe we should coordinate letters, e-mails, and phone calls, and set a date to send a message? I think I still have a draft letter from 2004 that I can post online as a sample.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Sounds good, Jay.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The Marriage Amendment was a serious strategic error. The Federal Constitution is difficult to amend and as we saw a handful of Senators can block any amendment.
State Constituitions, however, are a different matter. Many states now have marriage amendments.
We should take Concealed Carry laws as our model. Liberals veheminently oppose these, but they have been passed in state after state. There are currently more than 2/3s of the states with such law. Each new victory puts more pressure on those states without such a law, and heartens those who are still working to pass such laws in their states.
If we did the same thing with the Marriage Amendment, we would reach the point where Senators (and Congrssmen) would have to vote against the manifest will of their people back home if they opposed it.
State Constituitions, however, are a different matter. Many states now have marriage amendments.
We should take Concealed Carry laws as our model. Liberals veheminently oppose these, but they have been passed in state after state. There are currently more than 2/3s of the states with such law. Each new victory puts more pressure on those states without such a law, and heartens those who are still working to pass such laws in their states.
If we did the same thing with the Marriage Amendment, we would reach the point where Senators (and Congrssmen) would have to vote against the manifest will of their people back home if they opposed it.
T
Troy7
Guest
How true how true!You are right on the money with that observation, Thekla.
Too early to unchain Jesus from the GOP cellar and make the “Values Voters” campaign signs.
C
coyote
Guest
It does not rise to the level of being appropriate as an amendment to the US Constitution.
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
It has been a while scince I had U.S. goverment back in High School. Isn’t there a way to ammend the Consitituion by having a % of the States ratify it or something like that? Do ya’ll think we could give that a shot?
G
gilliam
Guest
Montie Claunch:
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
See:
usconstitution.net/constam.html#process
So other than letting his views be known, which President Bush has done. He really has no role in the actual process.
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
See:
usconstitution.net/constam.html#process
So other than letting his views be known, which President Bush has done. He really has no role in the actual process.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Just a small nit-pick. The original Constitutional Convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. They wound up proposing a whole new constitution. There is no limit to what a Constitutional Convention would do – although getting 3/4ths of the states to ratify a new constitution might be a tough job.
For that reason, the Constitutional Convention is considered to be the “Nuclear Option.” It’s main value is as a threat to get Congress moving on the other method.
- Status