From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: > >Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the > >Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state > >constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said > >leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban > >same sex marriages or not. > > Except in very rare cases, the US Supreme Court does not have authority > over the interpretation of a State constitution. > > In this case, the MA Supreme Court's ruling required implementation of > their radical decision immediately. The only recourse the people have of > MA have to this decision, is to spend a minimum of two years in order to > amend their Constitution to simply say what they believe it had said all > along... going back to the day it ratified it. > > For example, even a simple amendment "No provision of this Constitution > shall be construed as requiring the enactment of marriages or civil unions > between any couple or group" cannot be enacted for two years. > > In the meantime, they have no choice but to hand out gay marriages.
Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate.
Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of "judicial activism", they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution.
I think the argument is that without a national amendment in place, any State law or amendment to the constitution of an individual State is likely to be immediately overturned by the Federal courts, so any effort expended to pass a State law or amendment first is likely to be wasted.
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
