It’s an amendment proposed by members of the legislature and then passed by both houses and a majority of the states. Legally the president doesn’t have anything to do with it, I don’t see why a future Supreme Court would care what he had to say.
err…super majority. 3/4ths. Whatever. You know what I mean.
I don’t see how that affects things. Yes, people enjoy drinking alcohol. It activates the brain’s pleasure centers and makes them feel good. But in 1919, there was enough popular support to pass the 18th amendment. So while I’m not sure what percentage of the population drank alcohol in 1919, the democratic process led to Prohibition.
Fast forward to 1933. The people have turned against Prohibition, the democratic process gives us the 21st amendment. What changed? Not the attractiveness of alcohol; it still produces the same chemical effects in the body as it did in 1919. What changed is people’s understanding of the social processes relating to it. The fourteen-year experiement with Prohibition showed that banning alcohol was a foolish and unworkable policy. In short, folks saw that the temperance emperor had no clothes.
I’m sorry, but having a thread title like this, and no mention of the Log Cabin Republicans is an egregious bait-and-switch, if you ask me.
You’re right. That was just the easiest quote to find, but I suspect it reflects what most of the Republican Senators thoughts are. I haven’t read any of their floor speeches, though.
None of which would apply to an anti-marriage Amendment against homosexuals. It won’t change anything; it will prevent change. It also won’t affect most people anyway. The people won’t turn against it, because it won’t affect them - unlike Prohibition.
Has the Supreme Court ever referenced past congressional floor speeches of senators who supported an amendment when issuing decisions regarding the meaning of that amendment? I’m skeptical. I mean that’s at least 67 different senators, from two different parties, and one would think that the opinon of the 300 or so House Members who also need to vote in favor (and debatebly the opinions of the majority of state legislatures in 33 different states) would also be equally relavant. That’s gonna be a huge diversity of opinion, especially in a issue like this that people are tweaking their position on more or less soley to get votes from their constituents.
Even if a bulk of those people agree on some interpretation that isn’t obvious from the text, it seems to me it would sort of ruin the point of the ratification proceedure if a sizable sub-group could “attach” a interpretation that at least some of the original voters for the amendment didn’t agree with. If senators want a specific meaning read into the text, they should change the text so that that meaning is clear.