Post #143,164
2/24/04 11:22:33 PM
2/24/04 11:25:41 PM
|
Sure.
It takes 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states. It's very difficult.
There's also the [link|http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html|Constitutional Convention] route which also requires 2/3 of the states. (That way has never been used.) Since 38 states have already passed "marriage=man+woman" laws, that might be an easier route for proponents. Thankfully, an amendment approved by the Convention would still require ratification by 3/4 of the states.
A discussion of these issues took place at the WP today. [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2176-2004Feb24.html|Transcript].
It's the idea of it that bothers me. Yes, it's politics. But it's hard to imagine any good coming from the arguments about it.
:-(
Re the ERA - I know someone who still has a pro-ERA vanity license plate....
[edit - typo]
Cheers,
Scott.
Sure.
It takes 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states. It's very difficult.
There's also the [link|http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html|Constitutional Convention] route which also requires 2/3 of the states. (That way has never been used.) Since 38 states have already passed "marriage=man+woman" laws, that might be an route for proponents. Thankfully, an amendment approved by the Convention would still require ratification by 3/4 of the states.
A discussion of these issues took place at the WP today. [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2176-2004Feb24.html|Transcript].
It's the idea of it that bothers me. Yes, it's politics. But it's hard to imagine any good coming from the arguments about it.
:-(
Re the ERA - I know someone who still has a pro-ERA vanity license plate....
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #143,230
2/25/04 12:05:25 PM
|
ERA got me in trouble in college.
I was taking a freshman "Critical Thinking" class. The topic of the ERA came up. After several impassioned arguments for and against were made by several students, I was asked my opinion. I said, "The thing that amazes me most about all the comments I've heard today and before is that I know almost no one who can recite the amendment." I then asked several of the anti-ERA males in the room, "Can you tell me what it says exactly? How about you? What about you?" No one could answer my question.
The prof, an "empowered" woman very much pro-ERA came to the defense, "Well, you can't expect people to have the whole thing memorized." I replied, "Well, you can if they've ever read it!" She said, "Well, I've read it and I don't remember all of it." I replied, "That's preposterous! Section 1 is one sentence, Section 2 is one sentence and Section 3 is one sentence that says the amendment takes effect in two years. If you've ever read it, you couldn't forget what it says. And if you've never read it, how can you have an informed opinion on it? I find it ironic that I'm sitting in a Critical Thinking classroom where no one is thinking critically about this issue."
That didn't go over very well. She said, "Well then, why don't you tell us what it says?" So, I did. That went over even worse ;-)
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #143,233
2/25/04 12:16:19 PM
|
Dude, you're my f**king hero!
Of course the argument against that "abortion" ha ha is the same one to use against the Gaystead Act. The Constitution is not an empowerment arena, rather, a prescription for limiting the pernicious influence of government.
-drl
|
Post #143,239
2/25/04 12:47:06 PM
|
ah, the ERA...
As the deadline for ratification drew near, with the magic 38 just out of reach (and with a couple of states thinking aloud about rescinding previous endorsements) sundry women of my acquaintance joined the call for extending the deadline, and a couple of them became rather peckish when I suggested to them that should they prevail they might someday come to rue the precedent.
Since we should not tinker with the Constitution any more than absolutely necessary, I think Bush is missing a bet by not including in the proposed amendment language that would prevent married sodomites from burning the flag, thereby efficiently addressing two red-meat issues dear to his constituency with one amendment rather than a pair.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #143,250
2/25/04 1:20:39 PM
|
What about poo-munching and golden showers?
-drl
|
Post #143,252
2/25/04 1:23:13 PM
|
..he says as half of IWETHEY sits down to lunch...
-----
Steve
|
Post #143,262
2/25/04 2:28:43 PM
|
Re: What about poo-munching and golden showers?
Presumably employing Old Glory as a tablecloth in the first instance and a shower curtain in the latter? Hanging's too good for 'em, I say. In fact, a constitution's too good for 'em. Let's just reconcile ourselves to hereditary rule by the Bush dynasty, and government by executive fiat (informed, to be sure, by the Good Book—"only God, no other kings," as our Attorney General has so memorably warbled—lyrics at [link|http://www.toadalamode.com/ashcroft.html|http://www.toadalamode.com/ashcroft.html]).
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #143,270
2/25/04 3:28:29 PM
|
? the Earned Run Average got to do with the constitution?
when I was young I envisioned myself as the embodiment of Trinity, Now I realize I have turned into the Bambino
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #143,240
2/25/04 12:55:31 PM
|
What DeSitter said!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
