Categories
General

Constitutional Amendment 25

I’m curious about what prompted Congress to finally address the issue of presidential succession when they did, but there were actually two proposals for the 25th Amendment. One would have given Congress the power to determine the presidential succession by law. The other stipulated the succession in the Constitution itself.

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

It’s a long amendment because it is meant to cover any contingency but I’d hate to think how political the congressional maneuvering and manipulation could get if the amendment has simply stipulated that Congress could decide. To get an idea just look at the situation in Massachusetts where the (Democratic) legislature made a law that the governor (a Republican at the time) could not appoint a successor if one of their Senate seats (both held by Democrats) became vacant. Now with the death of Senator Kennedy they want to override that law because they have a Democratic governor again.

Categories
culture National

Massachusetts Sues Over DOMA

Well, it didn’t take any special insight to know that this would be happening. One look at the similarities between the question of slavery in the 1850’s as related by Lincoln in his House Divided speech and the issue of gay marriage today had me predicting last week that this would be happening. Notice that the argument by Massachusetts is that before DOMA the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the exclusive prerogative of the states.

In principle I would agree with them – the only problem is that while a nation may survive being divided over how high the taxes should be in each state it cannot survive being divided over the definition of marriage any more than it could survive being divided over the perpetuation of slavery.

Categories
culture General National

Change Done Right

With the news yesterday that New Hampshire passed a law to allow gay marriage I sincerely hope that the proponents of gay marriage may begin to see the right way to bring the change they seek – especially when put in context next to Vermont’s legalization of gay marriage, Maine’s legalization, the setback in the California Supreme Court ruling on Prop. 8, and the reaction to Massachusetts’ Supreme Court decision in 2004. While there has been little if any reaction to those three states that legalized gay marriage through the legislative process there was a large push to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts through a state constitutional amendment, and the same approach in California succeeded in rolling back the original Supreme Court decision in California that legalized gay marriage temporarily in 2008.

The point is that the right way to enact these changes is to take the time to educate and convince people so that the change may be made through the legislative process and be accepted rather than simply trying to ram “equality” down the throats of your fellow citizens based on an unwillingness to trudge the long path of education and debate.

Although it may seem quicker to use the courts, we should all remember that cutting off the debate through judicial action has not led to any resolution on the abortion issue even after more than 30 years. It may be that 30 years would be enough to take the “slower” route of education and persuasion to peacefully achieve your goals.

Categories
National State

Back Door Legislation or The Root of Judicial Activism

If there is anyone who still reads this blog they will be well aware that I have been lousy at posting anything in the last month or so. I have been working on various other projects and purposely leaving this site dormant for the present, but I am compelled to post after I heard that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is hearing a lawsuit on gay marriage. The court is being used as a vehicle to try to get a 1913 law thrown out which prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not residents of Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home states.The argument is that the law is being used to discriminate against gay couples. Unfortunately this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the law is being used to discriminate against gays then it should be applied equitably rather than being repealed. These plaintiffs need to prove that heterosexual couples who would not be allowed to marry a home are being given marriage licenses in Massachusetts.

It is easy to see that the agenda operating behind this is not deterred by state boundaries. This is nothing more than a step to legalize gay marriage throughout the country. If this suit succeeds there will be couples from around the country who come to Massachusetts to marry and then complain in their home states that they are facing discrimination. Nobody can argue that this is not the case because the plaintiffs include eight out of state couples. This will happen despite the fact that there is already a federal law stating that one state is not obligated to recognize marriages performed in another state.

I will attempt to walk a very fine line here. I do not wish this to be viewed as a homophobic posting. Unfortunately I cannot claim to know and love a large number of gay people (that would strengthen my argument) but I would hope that it can be said that I treat all gay people with whom I come in contact with the same respect that any human being deserves. I might add that this is the same respect which I withold from bigots of every type. I abhor bigotry and hope never to be guilty of it. That being said I want to address this suit in the light of judicial activism.

Suits like this are the very thing that give rise for judges to exercise any pre-disposisiton towards judicial activism. If this suit has merit the proper course of action would be to have the law rewritten or applied fairly. The plaintiffs have expressed their intention – which is to have the law annulled. If they fully win their case activist judges on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts can use it as an excuse to rule that the law be removed rather than corrected and enforced properly.

Anyone who nievely argues that this case stops at Massachusetts must ask themselves what a gay couple gains by going to Massachusetts to get married if they then return to their home state knowing that their marriage will not be recognized. The answer is that they gain nothing except more leverage in their fight to legalize gay marriage in their home states. This is not the correct way to go about changing the law. If you want a legal gay marriage move somewhere that it is already legal. If you want to legalize gay marriage live within the bounds of the law and push for legislation to make gay marriage legal where you live.

We have an estalished process for the passage of laws. If a majority of people believe in something it will become law. We have checks in place to minimize the chance for majorities to trample the rights of minorities, but the judicial system is to interpret law and not write it through opinion. If the 1913 law should be repealed that should happen through a vote of the legislature or a ballot initiative. Even Gov. Schwarzenegger understood that when he vetoed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage because the people of California had already passed a proposition stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The governor argued rightly that “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.” It can also be said that we cannot have a system where the people vote and judges derail the vote once it has passed by a super-majority.