Sunday Thoughts

| | Comments (0)

Louisiana voters passed a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. But some claim that a Constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional. I am not talking about the Federal Constitution, either, but that an amendment to a state Constitution can be violative of that Constitution.

Constitutional amendments can in fact be unconstitutional, if they would repeal or hamper rights that our Constitution defines as inalienable. Amendment #1 would repeal several inalienable rights set forth in Article I of our State Constitution, and therefore, it should not be allowed on the ballot.

It sounds crazy to me, but that's what they are saying. It seems to me that the new amendment takes legal precedence over what came before it. If this amendment goes against something in Article I, then it seems to me that, quite simply, that part of Article I is therefore being amended. That seems like a reason to vote against it, not a reason why it is illegitimate.

The case being made is that one cannot infringe on the rights granted by the state Constitution, even by amendment of that Constitution, which effectively means the Constitution is, in part, non-amendable. Since the Constitution itself does not explicitly state that, I don't see how anyone could reasonably conclude this. I doubt they even believe it, but hey, it's worth a shot, right?


CPD executive director Janet Brown was on Fox News Sunday, as their "Power Player of the Week." I wrote a letter to FNS about it.

I wish you had asked your guest about how the CPD was formed by the two main parties, continues to be controlled by them, and yet calls itself 'nonpartisan.' FEC regulations require that the CPD -- in order to receieve donations to pay for the debates -- be nonpartisan, but it is not. It is bipartisan. And FEC laws are being clearly violated.

I also wish you'd have mentioned the Citizens' Debate Commission, which is trying to end the CPD's control over the debates, or the League of Women Voters, whose control was the basis for the heads of the RNC and DNC creating the CPD in the first place. She complains that the CPD has little control, but the CPD was created to give the two parties the control that the LWV didn't offer them.

It further would have been nice to ask her -- following up with her claim that "people want" what the CPD offers -- why the viewership of the debates has consistently declined since the CPD took them over. Of course, we know the reason: because when the parties control the debates, they control the message, and the events become nothing more than novel forms of the stump speech we've already been seeing for months.

Slashdotters for Truth

Following the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, sponsored the Texans for Truth. Now there is the Football Fans for Truth, an actual 527 group that is out to show the world how Kerry is a poser football fan. There followed a joke Red Sox Fans for Truth, but FFT has included other sports among their complaints.

Divine Retribution

If this is true, 1. why did God wait so long if not to disrupt the election? 2. why would He not have waited a little bit longer?

Leave a comment

<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pudge published on September 20, 2004 12:26 PM.

CBS To Admit It? was the previous entry in this site.

Context is the next entry in this site.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.