That can’t be true, because some of the amendments specifically nullify earlier provisions. It is obviously legitimate to declare that the intention of an amendment was to counteract the original.
In general, however, if two parts of the Constitution are in conflict, the Supreme Court normally decides on a case-by-case basis. That’s exactly what tentherism is intended for, from what little coherence I can find in it. Proponents would use the court system to uphold whatever their favored causes are using the nebulous wording of the 10th amendment, without creating a general principle that could be used against them.
Oh, of course. What I meant was, I’m not aware of any theoretical hierarchy among those portions of the Constitution still in force.
Well… I’d describe that as the appearance of a conflict, which is clarified by the Court’s interpretation. (Again, still speaking of the theoretical ideal; I know that the Justices are often just players in the politics of the day.)
So “tentherism” isn’t for people who believe in upholding the Tenth Amendment as a general principle? What might be, then?
If the tenth amendment conflicts with article 6, though, article 6 stops being in force. Right now, the constitution says each state gets two senators. If we pass a constitutional amendment saying that each state gets three senators, than that would supersede the two senators rule and there’d be three senators from every state.
Likewise, if (and I don’t think this is the case), the tenth amendment really does go “against the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution”, then the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is superseded by the 10th Amendment.
First because it makes him sound like one of those “State’s Rights” nutters, and second because I think he will say anything if he thinks it will play well with his supporters. Third, because he has now backtracked and ‘clarified’ his statement to say he doesn’t support gay marriage- it’s not really fine with him…
I honestly can’t think that Chronos is clearly correct here.
Firstly, the 21st says, “Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”
Implied contradiction requires judgment. I honestly don’t think that simply looking at dates will hold sway in any major court of law. But I could be wrong.
Secondly, the Bill of Rights were all ratified at once. December 15th, 1791. Any temporal advantage would be measured in minutes, if at all.
Contrawise, I can’t wait for some of these people to realize that Perry was a huge fan of Al Gore. And a Democrat.
E-Sabbath, are you sure I’m the poster you’re referring to, there?
And the Bill of Rights may have been ratified all at once, but we’re not looking at a (purported) conflict within the Bill of Rights, but between the Tenth Amendment and Article Six.
Perry pushed for a amendment to the Texas constitution banning gay marriage when there was already a provision in the Texas Family Code that marriage was only valid between one man and one woman. The argument was that it was necessary in case the Texas Supreme Court ever invalidated the statute as had happened in other states, but each Texas Supreme Court justice is popularly elected in a statewide election, and is 100% Republican, meaning that would never, ever happen. Perry was pushing for a pointless and unnecessary amendment in order to energize the base and galvanize the support of the religious right behind him for the 2006 gubernatorial race, just as Bush pushed for the Rove orchestrated gay marriage amendment to the Constitution in 2004 to gain support for the midterms.
Oops. Brain failure. Article 6, not Sixth Amendment.
That’s more like the 12th Amendment, then, which rewrites but does not specifically eliminate a section of the Constitution. Yes, you’d be right there.
But if it’s one of those things where the contradiction only appears if you look at it a certain way…
I’m betting the Supreme Court would just push whatever case it was somewhere else and let it fall from lack of standing.
Why do you have such a need to be loved by liberals?
I think he’s dealing with the inevitable. The activist courts will probably impose gay marriage on the whole country while the legislative branch is sorting itself out.
Personally, I don’t have a Dog or a God in the fight. I don’t like religious types who are against it, but I have no use for the gays who keep inflicting these liberal politicians on us, either.
First, there really aren’t enough gays out there to take the credit or blame out there for the fact that liberal politicians get elected. It’s a much larger coalition than that.
Secondly, you really want to break gays free from the liberal coalition, then have the Republican party and the conservative movement come out strongly for gay rights. That’s all it will take. What’s costing conservatives, and more institutionally, Republicans, gay support is their vehement opposition to gay rights, because it’s making gays see the Republican party and the conservative movement as their enemies. If that stops, then the link tying them to the Democrats is broken, and gays will swing between the two parties just like anybody else. We know this because, when gay friendly Republicans run, they get gay votes.
It’s as simple at that. Stop demonizing gays, come out in support of gay rights, and you’ll get the gay vote. Same as every other group out there.
Sorry, man, total surrender is your side’s bag, not ours.
And when they put in a guy like Barnie Frank, you know, the guy who destroyed the economy because he was protecting his butt buddy over at Fannie Mae, yeah, I think that we have to kind of hold them responsible for that, don’t you?
Only for the “Please Like Me RINO’s” who keep getting us to nominate losers.
McCain. Dole. Jerry Ford.
Look, the GOP has never lost when it has nominated a real conservative spouting real conservative values. Nixon, Reagan, Bush-41 (the first time) and Bush 43.
It’s lost when it’s nominated “Please like me, Mr. Liberal” guys who see the other side as having a point.
And oddly enough, these are the people who are getting behind Romney this time, and are scared of Perry.