Roll Call of "Marriage Protection Act"

[NewJerseyDem]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll410.xml

Democrats voting yes:
Rodney Alexander (LA)
Marion Berry (AR)
Rick Boucher (VA)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Brad Carson (OK)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Bud Cramer (AL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Chet Edwards (TX)
Bart Gordon (TN)
Stephanie Herseth (SD)
Tim Holden (PA)
Chris John (LA)
Ken Lucas (KY)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Collin Peterson (MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (AR)
Max Sandlin (TX)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Charlie Stenholm (TX)
John Tanner (TN)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Jim Turner (TX)

Republicans voting no:
Charlie Bass (NH)
Doug Bereuter (NE)
Judy Biggert (IL)
Mary Bono (CA)
Mike Castle (DE)
Phil English (PA)
Mark Foley (FL)
Jim Gerlach (PA)
Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Amo Houghton (NY)
Nancy Johnson (CT)
Jim Kolbe (AZ)
Jim Leach (IA)
Doug Ose (CA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
Christopher Shays (CT)
Rob Simmons (CT)

[Cannikin]

1. Oh god....this isnt looking good.

[Paramita]

51. New Yahoo Group Antifundamentalism

Do you have a concern about the rise of the Christian Fundamentalism movement within the political structure of America? Have you thought about what the impact on your individual rights could be if they continue to gain political strength?



If so, or if you would like to learn more then there has been a new group formed on Yahoo that you should come and join. We want to here what you have to say about these issues during this critical time in our county.



So come on over and lets figure out together who put the mental in fundamentalism.




http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Antifundamentalism/

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Really disappointed in Steph Herseth....

[NewJerseyDem]

4. She's in a tough position

She won really narrowly in the special election and she will fact the same opponent in November. So, politically, it is tough for her to vote no.

[Brian_Expat]

12. She's in a REALLY tough decision now

Because hell will freeze over before I ever support her again, and she can count on me contributing to a competitor in the primaries and to a third party candidate if she is still the nominee.

[K-W]

18. Dont bite off your nose to spite your face.

Even the worst dem is better than giving the repubs another seat.

[Brian_Expat]

20. There's no difference between her and the Republicans

None. She is willing to piss all over the Constitutional order and the rights of a segment of the population to access the courts.

As far as I'm concerned, she already IS a repug. She can go **** herself.

[K-W]

24. Yah, no difference at all. You do realize this is why the repubs do it?

I understand this sucks, but get a grip. The republicans created this situation to do this, to force dems to vote on the issue. And you are just playing into thier hands. They just scored a point. They eliminated votes for a democrat.

Now they could potentially take the seat and put someone in who will vote for any anti-gay legislation that gets put on thier desk. All because you let them manipulate you.

[Brian_Expat]

28. The legislators who voted for this should be impeached

For violating their oath to protect and uphold the constitutions.

Republicans and Democrats alike.

Now they could potentially take the seat and put someone in who will vote for any anti-gay legislation that gets put on thier desk. All because you let them manipulate you.

Oh, yeah, they'll vote for anti-gay legislation like. . . this, for instance?

This isn't just about anti-gay legislation (though that's bad enough). This is about THE CONSTITUTION.

You don't fuck with the constitutional system. You don't vote for laws that destroy the Constitutional process FOR ANY REASON.

Anyone who supports this, Democrat or Republican, for ANY reason, is literally voting for the destruction of the rule of law in this country which BEGAN with the 2000 election fiasco and now appears to be fast heading for the complete liquidation of our system of government.

[NewJerseyDem]

46. Members of congress aren't impeached

But, they can be expelled.

And, this isn't necessarily a violation of the Constitution. It is up for debate whether or not it is constitutional to strip jurisdiction from all federal courts. I don't think it is a good idea but to suggest that anyone who votes for this should be kicked out of office is really ridiculous.

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. I'm sorry, but that's a fucking cop out.

The pukes may have forced a vote, but NOBODY forced any so called "Democrats" to vote FOR it.

Those who did so have NO excuses. Period.

I'm sick of hearing rationalizations for all the shitty, pro fascist votes that "Democrats" have cast since the coup. If they won't take a fucking stand for what's right when it's needed the most, then why the fuck are they in Washington DC in the first place?

Thank God none of the Washington delegation voted for this shit. They got it right for once.

[K-W]

39. Maybe you exist in a special plane outside of time and space

and can only act in morally pure ways, but the rest of us live on earth.

Politicians operate within a system. They can only vote when they get elected. If they dont get elected they get 0 power and they get no say in anything. If voting no on this bill would have meant a republican beating her, she did the right thing morally and you need to get off her case.

Not all situations are black and white. Not all situations are choices between pure good and pure evil. You are drawing a very simple moral picture of the situation. If I looked at your life, im sure I could find times where your behavior has violated some ethic. That does not mean you are not ethical, but sometimes life tries your ethics and sometimes it forces you to choose.

Politicians live in a situation where thier entire job is to make difficult choices. Choices between two options that dont look at all good, but they have to choose. You have the luxery of not having to make those choices, so you can be very pure in your ideology. They do not get that luxary.

Either accept that this is how our system works, and that politicians are in unique situations in a society and that the requirements of staying in the system by means must effect the behavior of those in the system, or start a revolution and change the system.

A vote is a part of the system, you need to take that system into account when you vote. You must vote in ways that will make the system do the right things. It isnt about the people, it is much bigger than individual politicians or individual votes. Peoples lives are at stake here.

Work all you can to change the sytem so that it allows you to vote your conciounce.

[Brian_Expat]

40. No, you are willing to "compromise" our basic constitutional system

This is not "pragmatic."

Anyone who votes to subvert the constitution is a CRIMINAL who has violated his oath to uphold the constitution.

Period.

[K-W]

52. You dont live in a perfect world.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but you dont get to live in a world where the rules are just and good and always applied.

The constitution writing from god. We should not, at the bend or break of it, swing into an irrational rage. Deal with it, it happens, sometimes it happens for good, sometimes for bad. The constution is one piece in a very complicated system.

[Brian_Expat]

57. I live in a world where the Bill of Rights matters

And I am unwilling to compromise (or "bend" to use your word) the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[K-W]

61. Silly me, I put human lives above the constitution.

I should be ashamed of myself I suppose.

The constitution is a document that puts a structure around our society. It is not magic, it was written by fallible human beings. The constitution exists within a system. A system is holds to a structure, but a system that has other controls. The system is bigger than the constitution.

I would destroy the constitution if the end result would be less human suffering on this planet.

That is the moral way to do things, to take the action that results in the least human suffering and most human happiness, not to take the action that adheres to your reading of a legal document.

[Brian_Expat]

66. The Constitution guarantees "human lives"

Anyone who would liquidate the basic human rights of all Americans for political expediency is frightening and disappointing.

I am ashamed of you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may history forget that you were my countryman.

[K-W]

70. Thats a strange ethic you got there

thanks for forcing it on me.

[Brian_Expat]

74. It's not a "strange ethic". . .

. . . it's a quote from Abraham Lincoln, who fought to preserve the rights you now take for granted and are so casually flushing down the toilet for "political expediency."

[G_j]

114. ," but the rest of us live on earth."

where some things are not acceptable under any circumstances. Would you agree?

[CTLawGuy]

105. Don't you know

she wasn't voting FOR a ban on gay marriage. She voted for a threat of force. She wanted to get Bush to go to the UN.

:crazy:

[Bertha Venation]

25. "So, politically," . . . meh.

I realize I'll be flamed for repeating this particular phrase, but, looks like Herseth knows how to "play politics."

So much for principled Democrats joining the ranks of the rank.

Shit.

[K-W]

26. Fine, lets not play politics, lets not participate

in the system that determines our society.

That sounds like a brilliant plan. Well I guess we will be ideologically pure, so we will have that as we exchange smiles in liberal containment camps.

[hatrack]

27. But if there are to be no consequences to pissing on the Constitution

When ARE we allowed to get pissed off and punish people for votes like these?

I'm not trying to dangle flame-bait here, but I'm just genuinely curious. What would it take for us (as voters) to exercise sanction against representatives who no longer represent us?

If they are not to be held accountable for something like this, is there a time in the forseeable future when we may be allowed to hold them accountable?

[Brian_Expat]

29. I agree with you completely

I do not want someone who has such contempt for our Constitution in my circle. They are not party members or friends or allies.

May their chains lay light upon them as they lay down to lick the hands of their masters.

[K-W]

47. Do you want revenge or results?

What is our goal here?

If it is to remove all non-believers, then fine, punish the democrats. Refuse to participate until an ideologically sound party has power, even if that day never comes.

But if your goal is to always take the action that will lead to the best for yourself and the country, then you need to rise above revenge. You need to look like a chess game, look at the consequences of your vote. Which outcome is better, that is the moral way to vote. Voting is a small amount of control that each citizen is given. You must use that control wisely.

There are good ways to hold politicians accountable, and there are really really destuctive ways.

[Brian_Expat]

115. I want accountability

And someone who believes the Constitution is toilet paper is not ever going to be an ally of mine.

There are some things I won't compromise on. You're welcome to go ahead and try, but you'll soon find that you don't gain as much as you lose in such exercises.

If you deal with the devil, you inevitably lose your soul.

[Bertha Venation]

35. No, darling. That wasn't my point at all.

I'm just thoroughly disgusted that Herseth struck out looking at three fat ones in her first major league at-bat.

[Brian_Expat]

37. She can enjoy her retirement soon

The election is coming. . .

[K-W]

55. You gonna replace her with a republican?

If thats what it takes? Two wrongs make a right now?

[Brian_Expat]

58. No "Democrat" who subverts the Constitution deserves office

I don't care if Rick Santorum's clone takes her seat. She voted to destroy the constitution and thus sullied the office she occupies.

[K-W]

62. So youd rather the country burn down than a dem act

in a way that violates YOUR interpretation of the constitution.

Sounds a bit fanatical to me.

[Brian_Expat]

68. Destruction of the constitutional order = country burning down

That's not "my interpretation of the constitution," it's fact.

If Congress can declare any law it wants off-limits to judicial review, then they can pass any law they want. The Constitution becomes as useless as toilet paper.

In such a scenario, the Republicans could pass a law declaring Bush "President for Life" and declaring that the SCOTUS cannot review it. Then how do you get the law declared "unConstitutional?"

Think that's ridiculous? I thought that the Congress ever passing a law declaring that an unconstitutional law would not be subject to SCOTUS review was also a ridiculous idea that would never happen, and here we are.

[K-W]

72. You are lost.

People adhere to the constitution voluntarily. Congress could pass a law declaring the president a king. The supreme court could say "were fine with it" and the constitution couldnt do a damn thing about it.

The constitution is just a set of rules, like all sets of rules, meant to keep people acting in a certain way. It is getting people to act in a certain way that matters, not the rules.

[Brian_Expat]

75. You are whacked

People adhere to the constitution voluntarily.

I suppose that's why Governor Wallace "agreed" to desegregate his state?!?

[AntiCoup2K4]

128. The country's been burning down since December 12, 2000

And you're defending the sellouts who just threw another bucket of gasoline on it, when they could have just as easily thrown a little water.

[CTLawGuy]

106. Im sick of this

melodramatic DLC propaganda.

Get a life!

[Ruby Romaine]

5. maybe she & chandler felt they had no choice-they are in such

RW states & there aren't enough votes in the senate
so they knew it was a pretend vote
I'm not saying I agree- just we need to get control of the house & senate & presidency any way we can
even if it means voting for horrible things like this.

[Brian_Expat]

14. They have voted NOT ONLY to go against gays. . .

. . . BUT WORSE:

TO UNDERMINE THE CONSTITUTION they SWORE to uphold and protect.

They are lower than pond scum.

[Dookus]

50. Brian

it's not clear this is unconstitutional. In fact, the constitution appears to give congress specific power to do this. the question will be whether the courts allow it in light of other court decisions and interpretations.

[Brian_Expat]

85. If the Constitution provides Congress the power to exempt laws from review

then the Constitution and Bill of Rights is absolutely worthless as a system of law, and separation of powers does not exist.

[asjr]

3. Marriage act

I think a few emails are in order.

[BurtWorm]

6. So Foley voted his heart. Why didn't Dreier?

[liveoaktx]

7. The difference, to me, is that I might still vote for the Dem

that did this, as opposed to the Republican. But I cannot go on the stump for him or work for his campaign.

[xxqqqzme]

8. bono better B voting

'no' W/ a new gay mayor of Palm Springs plus the huge gay population in that district she better B getting w/ the program.

[NewJerseyDem]

9. Well, it looks like the FMA will do badly

I assume that every member that voted against this will vote against the FMA and so will several others, probably. So, it seems that the FMA will not get anywhere close to the 2/3 needed in the House and may not even get a majority since I could see about 20 members that voted for this, perhaps voting no like Deborah Pryce (R-OH) who opposes FMA but supports this.

[mike1963]

10. Uh, the FMA was defeated last week

this is something new, a law, not an amendment (although I can't
BEGIN to imagine it's constitutional...)

[NewJerseyDem]

11. I know

But, there will be a vote on the FMA in the House in the fall, probably. I'm not sure if it is certain but I think I read they are scheduling one even though it obviously won't pass. I'm just saying that since this is a more moderate proposal than the FMA, the FMA will likely get even fewer votes than the MPA when there is a vote in September.

[Brian_Expat]

15. This is not "moderate" at all

It seeks to destroy the right of the people victimized by the law from their constitutional right to have a court review the law for its constitutionality.

It shits not only on gay people, but on the very rule of law and separation of powers itself.

[NewJerseyDem]

17. I know it isn't moderate

I'm just saying that in comparison to the FMA it is more moderate. They are both outrageous but the FMA is more outrageous than this because the FMA would ban all same-sex marriages, and perhaps even civil unions and domestic partnerships. All this does is strip the federal courts of jurisdiction. I don't think that should happen but it isn't as bad as if a constitutional amendment was passed.

[Brian_Expat]

21. There's no difference

Since the DOMA already blocks legal recognition of same-sex relationships by the federal government. Practically, it's the same as the anti-gay amendment.

In practice, it's even WORSE because it doesn't go the constitutional route to accomplish its goal, but actually actively subverts the Constitution.

Shame on the Democrats who voted for this piece of shit. They should be banned from the convention and thrown out of the party. An anti-gay vote is bad enough -- a vote to undermine the Constitution is unforgivable.

If we don't stand against this sort of thing NOW, then the Democratic party will die.

[NewJerseyDem]

73. I don't believe the bill applies to the federal recognition part of DOMA

I could be wrong but I think that the bill only applies to the part that says that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages of other states not the provision that says that the federal government won't recognize it.

[Brian_Expat]

76. No, the bill exempts DOMA from review

ALL of DOMA.

[NewJerseyDem]

92. I don't think so

I believe that originally it did but Chairman Sesennbrenner changed it. During the debate, members kept on saying how the bill took away jurisdiction over the ability of states to recognize same-sex marriage. However, nobody mentioned the federal portion. Also, as I looked over the Judiciary Committee's report on the Library of Congress's website it appears that it doesn't apply to the federal recognition provision.

[Brian_Expat]

96. The bill doesn't exempt just one part of the law

It declares that the entire bill is exempt from court review, INCLUDING the parts highlighted in the document.

In any event, if this precedent is accepted, the Constitution becomes fancy wallpaper.

[NewJerseyDem]

100. I really think you are wrong

This is what the part of the orignial proposal in question said:
------------------------------------------------
`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.'.
--------------------------------------------------
This is what the part of the final bill in question said:
------------------------------------------------------
`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, section 1738c is the part of DOMA that involves the recognition between the states. Section 7 of title 1 applies to the federal recognition part. The part that passed only mentions 1738c.
---------------------------------------------------
This is part of the text from DOMA:
---------------------------------------------------

`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

[Brian_Expat]

104. Regardless of whether I'm right about the application to DOMA

The more dangerous thing by far is the precedent this creates.

[NewJerseyDem]

109. So, it is still more etreme than FMA?

Even though FMA bans same-sex marriage in all cases and even civil unions and domestic partnerships, the MPA, which just strips jurisdiction from federal courts over state recognition of same-sex marriages, is more extreme? Don't you think there is a precedent being created by the FMA, as well?

[Brian_Expat]

121. Yes, it is

Because FMA is at least done under the proper constitutional process and has a massively high threshold to pass.

It's an evil, discriminatory amendment, but it IS constitutional and can be opposed and is difficult to get into the constitution.

This act of Congress, on the other hand, is a blatant power grab that decimates the separation of powers through a simple majority and advances a precedent that undermines over 200 years of jurisprudence.

[NewJerseyDem]

129. But, the MPA may be constitutional as well

The Constitution quite clearly permits Congress to make "exceptions and regulations" for the Supreme Court's appelate jurisdiction. A lot of people would argue that makes the MPA constitutional. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems that that provision must have some purpose. If this isn't its purpose, then what is?

[liveoaktx]

13. ACLU's info-*test* vote indicates FMA can't pass House

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16152&c=101

[redqueen]

16. How utterly sad

This just proves that legislators are aware of how the fundie nutbars in the reich-wing will spin their votes (only possible with the cooperation of the reich-wing media, of course) if they go against their insane wishes. This bunch of lunatics holds entirely too much power in this country.

[calico1]

22. All 5 of the Reps from my State, including the 3

Republicans, voted "no." That is good to see, but still, this is terrible that it got so many "yes" votes. I hope all the Dems who voted "yes" get voted out next time they run. This is inexcusable.

[redqueen]

23. Question

if they're the incumbent, how will they be voted out, unless you support the repub, who will certainly be no different if not even worse?

Is there any way for the grassroots to affect the process so that we can choose a new candidate over the incumbent?

[Brian_Expat]

30. Vote third party if you're faced with that choice

Send a sign to Democrats who think of voting for this sort of shit that going with the right wing to subvert the Constitution will NOT save them from defeat, but only ensure it.

[redqueen]

31. Third party just ensures a right-wing win

which guarantees subversion of the constitution.

Unless and until the election laws are changed, we need to work within the system... we need a way to select another Democrat, and oust the incumbent, IMO.

[Brian_Expat]

34. It doesn't matter

If Democrats support subversion of the constitution, they're just Republicans in Dems' clothing.

ANYONE who supports a law like this is not qualified to be in office and should be impeached for violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

We CANNOT compromise by voting for people who opt to subvert the constitutional system of government, regardless of what their party affiliation is.

Unless and until the election laws are changed, we need to work within the system

"The system" is now being liquidated in front of our eyes. If we cannot displace the duplicitous Dems who supported this law, we MUST support someone else and ensure they lose.

Supporting Democrats who support this wholesale destruction of our system of law only encourages them. I'd rather go for two years of an evil Republican majority than an eternity of unconstitutional laws destroying the right to appellate review of laws because Democrats think it's "safe" to vote for such things.

[redqueen]

38. I disagree

I can see this as the political gamesmanship it is. They probably knew full well it woulnd't go anywhere, so figured it didn't matter if they played this one for the morans.

Maybe.

You realize what could happen with a republican majority in congress? I want Kerry to be able to get something done... I want Democrats who atually have a *shade* of a chance of caring about getting something done... other than giving the rich tax breaks and charging the cost to future generations, starting wars with reckless abandon, etc.

[Brian_Expat]

41. It's not "gamesmanship" when it's the Constitution at stake

This sort of shit must be nipped in the bud. That means a political meltdown for anyone who would support such a law -- Democrat or Republican.

[redqueen]

43. Again I disagree

If everyone did what you're advocating here, no one would vote for any Democrat except the few who voted against the Patriot Act.

So, you're not going to vote for Kerry because he voted for it then? It's also unconstitutional, you know.

[Brian_Expat]

44. The PATRIOT Act was constitutional

This is the DESTRUCTION of judicial review.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

If this law is passed by the Senate, signed by Bush and succeeds in law, it will be a precedent that will allow a majority in Congress to nullify the Bill of Rights.

Even if it's thrown out by the SCOTUS, what if Congress or Bush refuse to comply with the ruling? It will trigger a constitutional crisis.

Either way, this is NOT child's play. This is not the PATRIOT Act, it makes the PA look like no big deal. This is the WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION of the rule of law, with NO respite for people targeted by unconstitutional law.

That's not the sort of shit you put up with or allow to occur. You don't play patty-cake with people who are actively destroying the constitutional order of the USA.

[redqueen]

63. You are acting as if anyone will do any differently

Check with the people who voted against it... ask them if the reason they voted against was to protect the constitution.

Do you really think whatever repub gets in office because of this kind of stuff will do any differently?

What is your goal here?

[Brian_Expat]

71. Once this technique is precedent. . .

. . . kiss all your civil liberties goodbye.

What if Congress next votes Bush "President for Life" and passes, as part of the bill, that the SCOTUS cannot review it? What if they voted to ban the Democratic Party?

How do you get such laws declared unConstitutional if the SCOTUS cannot review acts of Congress?

[redqueen]

77. They're already going

again, most Democrats voted to let them go willingly...

[liveoaktx]

33. Bad choice for me-The Dem in my almost-district voted FOR it

I think I will have to withhold my vote from that particular contest, as I equally can't vote for the Republican challenger. I have also been asked to work on the campaign-after the results of this vote, I called the party and told them I wont' do it.

[Brian_Expat]

36. Thank you

It's important that all the Democrats who supported this law understand they've forfeited their seats.

Democrats across the country MUST understand that a vote for an unconstitutional law such as this one that undermines our fundamental system of government WILL result in their defeat. They will NOT keep our votes and get right wingers too. They will LOSE. EVERY time.

[calico1]

130. Yeah, that's a good point. In my State

even the Republicans are Moderate. All of them have pro-choice voting records for example. They wouldn't get reelected if they didn't. So I don't really have that problem. Don't really know what the best answer is. I suppose if you have a Dem vote like this you could have a very strong letter writing campaign protesting the vote. The thing is, you don't want to vote for the Republican, and a third party candidate helps the REpublican almost always. So I don't know. Guess I was speaking from emotion but what do you do if you have a Dem voting "yes" and the other choice you have is a Rep who you know would vote "yes" or a third party candidate that would take away voted from the Dem? I guess the best thing to do is just have as many people as you can get call or write to the Rep that voted "yes." By the way, Rob Simmons is my Rep (R). I do not plan on voting for him even though he voted "no."

[gollygee]

19. I used to think of my repub congressman as a "moderate"

but I don't see how a moderate could vote for this. He's turned into a neo-con. He's so popular though it's very unlikely he'll get voted out.

:puke:

[TeeYiYi]

42. Jim Matheson (UT) . . .

. . . oops. There went his GLBT base. I predict a defeat for him in November. Dumbass.

TYY

[Brian_Expat]

45. Good

If most of the Democrats who voted for this piece of shit go down to defeat, it will send a strong message to the rest of the party. Don't cross that line. EVER.

[NewJerseyDem]

48. No, it won't

First of all, Matheson is not going to lose many votes because he voted for this. The social conservatives in his district greatly outnumber the gays in his district. He represents one of the most Republican districts in the country. Also, most people in the country probably don't even know that this vote happened so it is doubtful that it will make a major difference in the elections.

[Brian_Expat]

53. This isn't just a GAY issue

Although it is using gays as an unpopular minority to advance its agenda.

This is an issue of CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

There are conservatives, liberals, moderates, libertarians and even patriot freeper types who would stand against this BLATANT attack on the Constitutional order.

And if enough of us make a loud enough noise about it, we will make a difference. If every Democrat who cares about the constitution withholds his vote or casts it for another candidate, he wouldn't stand a chance and WOULD go down to defeat.

This is bigger than "control of a seat" or even control of Congress. This is the CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER we are talking about -- the BASIC freedoms that you and I enjoy to have legislation reviewed by the SCOTUS for a determination of its constitutionality.

If Congress can remove that right to review at any time with a simple majority vote, then the Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing. We might as well pack up our flags and constitutions and go home. It would be over.

[Disturbed]

56. Green Party

Amerika is a Plutocracy. Anyone that keeps saying voting for other than Dems is voting for Repubs please consider pushing for a Revolution. We need a Multi-Party System to rid ourselves of the Plutocracy. The two party system is obsolete and millions don't vote anymore because of the constant lesser of dilemma. The Democratic Party has lost it's way. The Green Party is the future.

[Brian_Expat]

59. If the Dem party ignores the liquidation of the constitution, we're FUCKED

Plain and simple.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Lets say hypothetically that a third party candidate could win some states

The election would get tossed to the house of representatives in EVERY close election. Do you really want a Repuke controlled gerrymandered house choosing the president in every election. That's what would happen if we had a multi-party system unless we ammended the constitution. Right now we aren't exactly concerned with ammending the constitution so that Ralph Nader can have his voice heard, we are concerned with getting the facists and warmongers out of the white house.

[Brian_Expat]

78. Suppose this vote, supported by some Democrats, becomes precedent

Then the whole Constitution doesn't matter. Republicans can pass laws that are blatantly unConstitutional and use the "no review by the SCOTUS" clause to keep it on the books.

They could declare Bush "President for Life" and ban the SCOTUS from reviewing that law, making it permanent despite being unconstitutional.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. Suppose Bush gets another 4 years

You can bet that this will get upheld by the SCOTUS after he gets to appoint new justices.

[Brian_Expat]

90. Nobody's calling for a vote against Kerry

A vote against Democrats who support this legislation in Congress, however, is a different matter entirely.

And yes, if Kerry supported this legislation, I would also vote against him.

[stavka]

102. Green Party needs to build from the bottom up -

Without money, I mean REAL money - the Green party might as well be Nazi's or Maoists when it comes to national politics.

I consider myself a progressive, and I have long ago left the notion we would ever have progressive Democrats directing the national agenda again (I think FDR would have been my last President to hold that label)

Control LOCAL politics-
Influence State politics-
and the money will follow.....

Don't care about the money? Hope everybody enjoys dreamland, what color is the sky in your world?

[depakid]

49. What a complete waste of time

Congress can't tell the Federal courts how to interpret the Constituion.

Hell, every high school student knows that (or would know that if schools bothered to teach basic civics).

[Dookus]

54. It's unclear

whether that's true.

from Article III, Section 2:

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Brian_Expat]

60. The fact that the Repubs would even open this door. . .

. . . is a testament to their absolutely dangerous agenda.

[Dookus]

65. I agree

but simply shouting that it's blatantly unconstitutional is a waste of time - it is NOT blatantly unconstitutional. It's an issue that, as far as I can determine, has never been decided.

[Brian_Expat]

82. It SHOULD be blatantly unConstitutional

It's DEFINITELY unprecedented and might trigger a constitutional crisis.

[Dookus]

87. sigh

why SHOULD it be blatantly unconstitutional if the constitution appears to say rather clearly that Congress DOES have the power?

We agree 100% that it's a bad idea, that the repercussions are horrible, and they shouldn't go down this road.

But... that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the proposal.

[Brian_Expat]

97. Why should it be unconstitutional?

Wellllll. . . let's see. . .

Separation of powers;

AND

the Bill of Rights

Just two name two key concepts.

How do you propose to enforce the Bill of Rights or any of the rest of the Constitution if Congress can pass a law that violates the Constitution and exempt that law from judicial review?

What if DeLay's Republican Party passes a law that says "Bush is hereby president for life and the present sitting Congress shall henceforth be administered solely by myself, with my vote being the only one that counts, and this law may not be reviewed by any court, including the SCOTUS"?

[Dookus]

112. Brian...

please calm down. I have said repeatedly that I think the courts WILL strike it down, and I think they'd be right to do so.

But... it is NOT "clearly" unconstitutional. The text says what it says, and it DOES seem to contradict Marbury v Madison.

My only point is that there IS a constitutional question here.

[Brian_Expat]

122. Read what I posted

I said it SHOULD be unConstitutional. Not that it is "clearly" unconstitutional.

It is, clearly, a violation of the accepted principle of "separation of powers" and that's dangerous.

[depakid]

79. Oh, it's crystal clear-

Read Marbury v. madison.

Here's an except of the near universally accepted principles established in that case:

The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.

The Court would not declare another act of Congress unconstitutional until 1857, and it has used that power sparingly. But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution, it has, especially in the twentieth century, been the chief agency for the expansion of individual rights. (See Part V.)

[redqueen]

81. Tempest in a teapot, anyone? n/t

[Brian_Expat]

84. Only to people who don't care about their rights under the Bill of Rights

[Dookus]

83. constitutional law

is rarely crystal clear. I don't know of any case where the court can use a prior decision of the court to overturn the clear text of the constitution.

That said, I believe the court WILL find it unconstitutional, but I'm not sure what logic they'll use.

[Brian_Expat]

86. Suppose Congress doesn't accept the ruling?

After a move like this bill, I can see the Repugs declaring that they're ignoring the SCOTUS ruling.

[Dookus]

94. they cannot do that

they can, however, pass a constitutional amendment if they want to make the power more clear. However, I think such an attempt would fail.

[Brian_Expat]

98. Why can't they do that?

Judicial review is the only mechanism by which a law can be declared unConstitutional. If that can be taken away by Congress, than any law can be as constitutional or unconstitutional as Congress wants, without change or recourse.

[Dookus]

107. well... first off

Congress has no enforcement powers - they can't "impose" a law themselves. Second, blatantly refusing to obey the federal courts would doom them to minority status for a century.

[Brian_Expat]

108. I'm not so sure. . .

The SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism either.

And all they have to do is declare that the Constitution is on their side and refuse to back down and BOOM. Instant constitutional crisis, one that cannot be resolved.

[depakid]

95. Under your analysis

Congress could bring back segregation!

The whole point of having a Constitution and Bill of Rights is to spell out the roles of LIMITED government.... If Congress could simply say oh, and by the way, Federal courts- you can no longer apply the equal protection clause to <fill in the blank> group or situation, then the documents would have no meaning at all! We might as well adopt a straight up parliamentary system

Also, Marbury isn't just "a prior decision of the court" it's THE basis for the majority of all federal jurisprudence-

[NewJerseyDem]

101. The court can't find the bill unconstitutional

The MPA prohibits it from doing so. But, if they did it would really create deadlock between the two branches because they both would say the other is wrong.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108DLFXGC::

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.

[Dookus]

110. Of course they can find it unconstitutional

the very question at the core of the bill is whether Article III, Section 2 empowers congress to limit jurisdiction. The courts will have to decide that question, not congress.

[Brian_Expat]

113. Not necessarily. . .

. . . there's no guarantee that the courts are the final say on the matter. And if the Republicans are willing to undermine the Constitution twice, they'll not hesitate to do it a third time.

[Dookus]

119. Sorry

I disagree. The court will definitely rule on the constitutionality of it, and if they say its unconstitutional, the court *IS* the final authority on the matter.

[Brian_Expat]

123. If Congress defies the SCOTUS, there's nothing the SCOTUS can do

And that's the reality.

[NewJerseyDem]

126. True

Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers how the judicial branch is the weakest because the legislative branch has the power of the purse and the executive branch has the power of the sword, but the judicial branch has nothing.

[NewJerseyDem]

125. It isn't that simple

The Congress specifically says that no inferior federal court has jurisdiction over the MPA. That is certainly constitutional.

So, only the Supreme Court could claim jurisdiction over the MPA but the Congress says it doesn't have jurisdiction. And while most of us would think that the Supreme Court should win out here, I don't think it is that clear.

Also, obviously this is all hypotheticals considering the Senate won't pass this bill.

[depakid]

111. That provision is void on its face

and should a case arise, all but the most extreme judges would dispense the MPA in very short order.

[dusty64]

67. COCKROACHES!

It really is past time to clean house in the Democratic party, and I know I know (thats not how you supposedly win). Standing for nothing is even worse than losing, if they would actually take a stand and explain to the People why this is wrong and blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL I believe a majority would support them. I for one am sick to death of this extreme rightwinglite bullshit and I wish I got get a refund for my contribution to Ms. Herseth. What a gigantic clusterfuck waste of time and taxpayer dollars these politicians in Washington are. My piece of human shit "rep" is gonna get an earfull from me tomorrow.

[redqueen]

69. Shooting yourself in the foot just isn't good politics

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[Brian_Expat]

80. Liquidating the Constitution is indeed a shot in the foot

With a nuclear bomb.

[neverborn]

88. I have TWO gay friends working for HERSETH. TRAITOR!!

[Brian_Expat]

91. Herseth's not just a traitor to those gay people.

Herseth's a traitor to the country and the Constitution by supporting this UNPRECEDENTED assault on the separation of powers.

[ibegurpard]

93. This bill should NOT have been allowed to be framed

as an issue about gay marriage. It was about removing the power of federal courts. NO ONE should be for that.

[Brian_Expat]

99. It's just like Hitler

Target an unpopular minority with a law that undermines the constitutional order, and you "kill two birds with one stone."

For the first time in American history, the independent judiciary is now potentially in doubt.

How far we have fallen.

[redqueen]

103. If you're right about this

and it's being done to set a precedent, then I'm all for raising awareness...

I guess I just think voting out democrats (*and thereby voting IN republicans*) maybe isn't the best way to raise awareness.

They failed, so we have a chance to sound the alarm... the alarm though, IMO, shouldn't come in the form of handing the keys to the congress over to the party that's more likely to do this quietly.

Can we think of other ways to raise awareness with the public, instead of voting our democrats to send a message about this? If we just do that, many people may never realize why and be completely blindsided if the republican congress does just this after we lose all those races and end up with a criminal congress willing to do just what you're saying.

[redqueen]

116. Hello?

How about this idea for dealing with this issue, instead of ensuring a republican congress by fanning the flames of outrage in areas which are clearly close races?

[Brian_Expat]

118. You're still too short-sighted

If the separation of powers is destroyed or compromised severely, it DOESN'T MATTER who is in Congress. America as we know it is over.

[Brian_Expat]

117. Obviously, the Republicans are the main sponsors

And should be targeted as such.

However, Democrats who supported this should be completely abandoned by the party and its supporters. No money, no support, no grassroots, no votes.

[redqueen]

120. I'm sorry... I just can't agree with that

I think we should instead focus on raising awareness of the issue, and ensuring it gets nowhere in the Senate.

I just can't come to grips with handing the house to the republicans... I just can't.

But thanks for your efforts raising awareness.

[Brian_Expat]

124. If we allow Democrats to vote like Republicans. . .

. . . then we've handed the House to the Republicans regardless of what "party" occupies it.

[NewJerseyDem]

127. Then force them out in primaries

But, don't let Republicans take their seats. Also, those Democrats vote a lot better than all Republicans on a lot of other important issues so you can't just ignore those votes. And finally, control of congress is what is most important. The MPA never would have come up if Pelosi was Speaker so it is important the Democrats retake congress and while that is unlikely to occur in the 2004 elections, it could happen in the not so distant future.