One of the first places we have to start in a discussion about a Constitutional Amendment is to figure out exactly what it is.
Essentially, the Constitution is the base agreement that acts as the foundation for all other laws. It outlines what the government can and can’t do.
The biggie, of course, is the US Constitution which was passed by Congress in 1789. It has subsequently been “Amended” or changed 27 times. Some of the amendments go back to just a few years after the initial passage (the Bill of Rights), and several more were done after the Civil War in order to confirm the changes brought about as a result of that conflict.
States all have a Constitution as well that serves to outline how that government will operate as well as the rights and obligations of its citizens. A constitution is drafted by a “Constitutional Convention”, which is called in a variety of ways depending on the state you’re talking about. In North Carolina
A constitutional amendment, and the legislation leading up to it, cannot be vetoed by the governor.
The complete text of the North Carolina Constitution and its amendments can be found at: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html.
2 comments:
Ralph - while there are many that would laud Constitutional law it also has a major drawback. Many laws that are passed are viewed by judges who have to decide if a law is constitutional or not. This, at times, bypasses what is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral.
If a court, at times, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, deems that a law is constitutional, however heinous it may be, it remains as law until such time as the legislature (federal or state) decides to pass a new law.
Compounding the possible ammorality of this process is the poltical and social ideology of the prevailing court members. Their view of how the constitution was intended is based, to a large extent, on promoting their own societal views.
When one looks at how many Supreme Court decisions end in a 5 to 4 vote one can only surmise that constitutionality is in the eyes of the beholder.
While the Founding Fathers may have felt that this was the way to curb excesses in government it has often times been used as a way to promote the very opposite.
especially at the Supreme Court level, where Justices are there for life, and nominated by the President, the election of a President has, at times, also had a major impact on the trends in this country. Another instance of unintended consequences.
Rightly or wrongly, the people of this State have precisely what they deserve. Those that chose not to engage in the electoral process during the last election cycle, you contributed, in absentia. For those that elected the bastions of Christian morality, leastways on the surface, you contributed directly.
I think somewhere in a book that last group of folks finds popular is the phrase, "let he among you that is without sin cast the first stone."
It is not my purpose to debate Constitutional law or lumber on concerning the merits thereof. But I am of the belief that a Constitutional Amendment to specify the gender of parties who may enter into a martial agreement is the most moronic thing I've heard in my life. Besides, it seems to me that such a proposal would violate the fundamental inalienable rights of the Federal Constitution reserved to every person: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." I'm not gay, but I recognize that either those fundamental rights are available to all of us, or they will be available to none of us. If this passes, what would be next? A Constitutional amendment based on the race of the individuals to enter into a marital contract?
This is an ingenious solution to avoid redress of a problem by making that problem non-existent. It's time that those who are elected understand and stand by the oaths of their respective offices that the law applies equally to all persons and that the guarantees and protections provided are likewise applicable to all persons.
Post a Comment