OH, it is Her again!

Monday, January 05, 2009 -

Ah well, it was nice while it lasted. New User off AGAIN due to people being pains *sigh*....to join, e.mail Feckless Wench at morticiacemetaria@hotmail.com

Home

Current Posts

There Ought To Be A Law

Viewed: 233

OH, it is Her again!

The other post was getting way to long and I was starting to lose track of the conversation.

Sarah Palin used her first veto as Governor to block a bill that would have prohibited the State from granting health benefits to same-sex partners of public employees.

Ms. Palin said she vetoed the bill because it was unconstitutional.

She then raised possibility of amending the state Constitution so the ban could pass muster.

That sends a message to me, that if she does not like something and cannot change it because it would be violating the Constitution if she did, She will do all she can to change the Constitution. Of course this was on a State level, but only because, she doesn't have federal power...yet. I do not see an indication she would change this character trait should she become VP.

Anyway

It has been brought up that there are several amendments to the Constitution as well as it has to go to the voters before an amendment can happen. I got curious about that so I have done some research.

I have a few questions I want to answer, for myself, if no one else.

1) What exactly is needed to make an amendment
2) Why are the amendments of the Constitution there.
3) Could Sarah Palin actually pull it off? Could she actually amend the Constitution so an unconstitutional ban could pass muster?

Because that is rather scary for me. If one cannot have a bit of faith in Our Constitution, what have we really got in America.

ARTICLES in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the several states, pursuant to the fifth article of the original Constitution.

Meaning

Amendments may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the states. To become part of the Constitution, amendments must be ratified (approved) by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.

So guess what Eddo, you are wrong, it does not have to go to the voters to be amended. It can be brought before the voters but it does not have to be brought before the voters. Palin would only need to convince 3/5 of the legislatures to get an amendment passed. Still a challenge but not impossible.

From what I can gather, by actually reading Madison's proposal for the amendments, those amendments were not proposed so an unconstitutional ban could pass muster.

Replies

9/26/2008 7:56:54 PM From: Ali ooooh, emkay's gonna be PISSED...lol. I'm just too tired to get into this tonight but I'm sure the post will spark some interesting discussion.


9/26/2008 8:04:52 PM From: MrsK Yeah I am waiting for Em o see it too! lol


9/26/2008 8:25:07 PM From: Rani yeah me too, hence the title!


9/26/2008 8:45:13 PM From: emkay64 Oh my fukking God! When is this mother fukking election going to be over!?


9/26/2008 8:52:20 PM From: Peanuts I'm just a bill..yes only a bill... You've never seen Schoolhouse Rock? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ


9/26/2008 8:57:16 PM From: Peanuts Hehehe.. emkay^^


9/26/2008 9:00:32 PM From: Rani Soon Emkay, soon.


9/26/2008 9:01:14 PM From: Rani Oh Schoolhouse Rock, I watched that so much when my kids was growing up. Bills have a way of becoming laws.


9/26/2008 10:59:02 PM From: hugo There were Amendments that ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. Do you think those amendments were a bad thing? The Amendment process is the proper way to change a constitution much better than the judicial activist way.


9/27/2008 7:13:11 AM From: Rani OH Hugo, I agree and my point is the amendments that are apart of the Constitution are not there to take rights away but to protect rights given.


9/27/2008 7:35:32 AM From: Rani While many would not see this as a serious threat to our country, because it invovles Gays, I do and this is why, a person who is willing to manipulate our Constitution to suit themselves rather than follow the Constitution and can get by with it on gay rights issues, what is to stop them from hitting other American rights and bending the Constitution to favor only his or her personal view? Sure some things might be more difficult than others to get passed but you know as well as I do if campaigned the right way, it can be done. One good look at the culture trend of smoking can show proof of that. It once was a very acceptable practice, people could go and smoke anywhere they please and now it is a taboo. It came with one small victory after another until it has progressed into smokers are facing not even being able to smoke in homes they rentor even own for that matter. It is a huge difference from what it used to be showing attitudes can be changed. I am just not comfortable with someone believing they have a right to use the Constitution for personal gains.


9/27/2008 9:52:59 AM From: PapaBryant Rani, you cannot grant rights to a group without making that group superior to another. That is why your gay rights position is wrong; ensuring citizenship rights are respected are fine, but those things that are not related to political rights, such as marriage and access to spousal employer benefits aren't political rights - they don't relate to citizenship, and government has no business envolving themselves in it.


9/27/2008 11:59:18 AM From: Rani I agree papa, I agree.


9/27/2008 12:03:11 PM From: Rani That is why I believe a politician should be very careful about raising the possibility of amending the Constitution so an unconstitutional ban could pass muster.


9/27/2008 3:47:57 PM From: hugo Her vetoing a bill, that she otherwise agreed with, shows respect for the constitution and the rule of law. If ya want to attack the McCain/Palin ticket for disrespecting the Constitution it is quite easy. Two words-McCain/ Feingold. Of course,Barack and 3/4ths of the Dems supported it while most Republicans opposed it.


9/27/2008 3:58:20 PM From: hugo Of course, there is massive fraud wherever same sex benefits are allowed. Which costs all of us dearly.


9/27/2008 4:39:25 PM From: Peanuts ^^ Yeah they wouldn't let me marry my brother so he could get on my health insurance plan. Go figure.


9/27/2008 8:09:52 PM From: MrsK But if they didn't let you marry your wife for that very reason you might be a little pissed off. We aren't talking incest we are talking two consenting adults.


9/27/2008 10:02:52 PM From: hugo Note to gays. Be normal..screw someone of the other sex. Stop being idiots.


9/27/2008 10:25:26 PM From: Rani To even consider amending the Constitution to include religious doctrine and morality violates the original concept of the Constitution. Most people ignore when stuff like this happens or happily supports it because it doesn't effect them personally. If we do not stand up and let our voices be heard we can perceivably see ourselves living under a religious dictatorship.


9/27/2008 10:28:35 PM From: Rani I am but only one tiny voice but I will use that voice at the polls.


9/27/2008 10:33:52 PM From: hugo I know a man who married a three-toed sloth for the sloth's medical benefits.


9/27/2008 10:38:27 PM From: Rani Making proposals to amend the Constitution to ensure they are able to promote and make laws based on personal values, not necessarily the values of the people seems to be a trendy in thing for politicians to do now a days and it is a dangerous slippery slope that is going to end in bad. Right now most everyone is applauding this dangerous trend because right now the target is the Gay community. If we, the people allow it to continue, mark my words it will come back to bite us in the ass.


9/27/2008 10:42:21 PM From: Rani ^^^going to end in bad juju.


9/28/2008 8:19:20 AM From: hugo Given the super majorities required to pass an amendment those personal values are going to have to be shared by a large majority.


9/28/2008 11:55:57 AM From: Rani and that can be done too with the right campaign.


9/29/2008 4:36:24 AM From: BCAR Give it a f ucking rest, there isn't going to be any such amendment now or later. Spend your time picking out some nice ties and short sleeved shirts for your husband to be.


9/30/2008 8:31:16 AM From: timesjoke ^^^exactly, it seems many are wasting a lot of time complaining aobvut things that cannot possibly be an issue. The point Rani and many others miss is no matter what Sarah's personal beliefs were, she still did the right thing and said if there was that much support in her state for ending that kind of thing, then the proper way was to create an amendment. That placed the issue clearly where it belonged and let everyone know just how serious a step they were taking..................I wonder why Sarah having strong beliefs is so scary for people? John Kennedy was very religious and spoke publically about his faith. Many presidents all the way back to George Washington have been very religious and were incredible leaders. Having beliefs does not make you a bad person, in fact, I find those with religion 100 times more accepting of other people than athiests who have nothing but hatred for the 90% of the population that do believe in some kind of God.


9/30/2008 1:21:19 PM From: emkay64 ^^^Your last statement is a huge generalization.


9/30/2008 1:24:32 PM From: emkay64 Ehhhh...I thought about it. You statement is far off base. I'm an atheist and I do hate 90% of the population....but only because they are douche nozzles. Carry on...


9/30/2008 1:25:26 PM From: emkay64 isn't damn I wish I could edit....I HATE YOU ALL!!!!


9/30/2008 5:09:12 PM From: timesjoke That is really what this is all about, her 'true' belief in God. With all the screaming and crying going on about Sarah the biggest things these wackos can come up with is non-issues like this and shooting wolves to protect substance hunting. Her record is clear, even this thread admits it, Sarah defends the constitution even if it goes against her religious beliefs, she does not look the other way, she will always do the right thing and if she feels strongly about something that is not supported by the constitution she will use the rules to work tword change, I respect that she has complete respect for the constitution and the process to do things the right way. I wish more politicians respected our founding documents this much.


9/30/2008 5:15:06 PM From: MrsK They are non issues. They are the clues that lead you to understand the tendencies of the candidate.


9/30/2008 5:15:23 PM From: MrsK not non issues


9/30/2008 6:04:44 PM From: Rani "she has complete respect for the constitution" my whole entire point is she does not have respect for the constitution. Far from it, if she disagrees with the constitution she will do all she can to change it so that she can pass her bills that are unconstitutional. Clearly you failed to comprehend a very simple statement. You men might be fooled in thinking she is God's gift to mankind but we women KNOW BETTER!


9/30/2008 6:05:05 PM From: Rani We are not influenced by a sweet smile and perky tits.


9/30/2008 7:53:07 PM From: MrsK Nope. Hillary's tits were certainly not perky. But I still love her!