Monday, June 05, 2006
Gay amendment
On a concrete political level:
I really wonder what Electoral Engineer Rove is thinking this time. Does he truly believe this will energize anybody? At some earlier point (say 2002) it might have served his cynical purpose. Now it will only energize the Dems, because none of the conservative base is even listening any more.
On a deeper level:
Yet another case of asking the wrong question. It's violently true that we have a problem with federal 'judges' serving the enemy. But no change in the text of the Constitution will have even the remotest effect on this problem, because 'judges' get their kicks from turning the Constitution upside down and ripping it to shreds. Adding another bit of text will not stop Reinhardt and his fellow traitors; it will just give them another piece of text to turn upside down.
Guaranteed: Reinhardt will find a way to read this amendment to require homosexual marriage, and nobody will have the guts to stop him.
The cure for the problem is to get rid of the bad 'judges'. Easiest way is to eliminate the appeals courts entirely and set up new courts. By executive order. If this makes a problem with employment contracts, fine. Keep on paying the traitors and give them nothing to work on. It's a common trick in union shops or tenure-bound universities: you can't fire the incompetent or disloyal, but you can prevent them from doing any more harm.
-----
Afterthought: If the Constitution were still in effect, a good case could be made for refining the 'full faith and credit' clause. Even in the hands of non-mischievous judges, it leads to peculiar and evil results. Consider Dred Scott, which was strictly in accord with the clause but destroyed the proper 'self-regulating' action of federalism. On the other end, consider a driver's license or a doctor's license, which would seem to be a contract, and thus should be valid in all states. Federalism would work better if drivers, doctors, and other licensed folks, were more free to vote with their feet and move their skills from bad states to good ones. I don't pretend to know what phrasing would fix both of those problems, but it's clear that the existing language forces an honest judge to create these bad results. ¶ 12:35 PM
I really wonder what Electoral Engineer Rove is thinking this time. Does he truly believe this will energize anybody? At some earlier point (say 2002) it might have served his cynical purpose. Now it will only energize the Dems, because none of the conservative base is even listening any more.
On a deeper level:
Yet another case of asking the wrong question. It's violently true that we have a problem with federal 'judges' serving the enemy. But no change in the text of the Constitution will have even the remotest effect on this problem, because 'judges' get their kicks from turning the Constitution upside down and ripping it to shreds. Adding another bit of text will not stop Reinhardt and his fellow traitors; it will just give them another piece of text to turn upside down.
Guaranteed: Reinhardt will find a way to read this amendment to require homosexual marriage, and nobody will have the guts to stop him.
The cure for the problem is to get rid of the bad 'judges'. Easiest way is to eliminate the appeals courts entirely and set up new courts. By executive order. If this makes a problem with employment contracts, fine. Keep on paying the traitors and give them nothing to work on. It's a common trick in union shops or tenure-bound universities: you can't fire the incompetent or disloyal, but you can prevent them from doing any more harm.
-----
Afterthought: If the Constitution were still in effect, a good case could be made for refining the 'full faith and credit' clause. Even in the hands of non-mischievous judges, it leads to peculiar and evil results. Consider Dred Scott, which was strictly in accord with the clause but destroyed the proper 'self-regulating' action of federalism. On the other end, consider a driver's license or a doctor's license, which would seem to be a contract, and thus should be valid in all states. Federalism would work better if drivers, doctors, and other licensed folks, were more free to vote with their feet and move their skills from bad states to good ones. I don't pretend to know what phrasing would fix both of those problems, but it's clear that the existing language forces an honest judge to create these bad results. ¶ 12:35 PM
