Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (229030)	4/13/2005 1:17:13 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577988

Let me just say that the reason Congress and Bush are backing off of a constitutional amendment for gay marriage is because they have been told it would not be constitutional. For anyone who understands the provisions in the Constitution that comes as no surprise. AFAIK, there are absolutely no limits on the content of change using the Amendment process. I suppose that State constitutions might place limits on what the states can do, but I have never heard of such relating to the Amendment process. So we could embed any nasty act you can imagine in the US Constitution. A constitutional amendment can not violate any of the provisions of the Constitution. If an amendment is inherently undemocratic, then it violates the Constitution and is unconstitutional. If that were not true, then it would be fairly easy for a rogue Congress to pass any ole amendment that met their fancy and submit it to the states for an approval. ted