Daily words of wisdom from the mind of Obama
I know, I know.. not even close to daily…
Still catching up on the forum hosted by Rick Warren via YouTube… by the way, if you missed it too, it is being replayed on Fox News Saturday evening.
I found the following exchange interesting in that Obama seems to indicate that we can not have amendments to the Constitution to address things that are not in the Constitution (time mark :29):
Warren: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition.
Obama: No I would not, and because historically, because historically we have not defined marriage in our constitution, it’s been a matter of state law, that has been our tradition.
In my humble opinion, two of the most important amendments to our Constitution would not exist today if we applied Obama’s wisdom to the identification of what is and is not suitable for consideration: The 13th Amendment:
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
And the 19th Amendment:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
These amendments could be interpreted as impinging on the states’ right to enact their own laws, the rights of citizens to own slaves, breaking with the tradition of extending the right to vote to only one gender; yet I would hope we can all agree that these were appropriate applications of Article V of the Constitution:
Article V: Amendment Process
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Regardless of whether you agree there should be an amendment defining marriage in our Constitution, (I am not sure I agree, but the mess made by allowing it to be different state by state makes it worthy of consideration), arguing that it should not be considered because “historically we have not defined marriage in our constitution, it’s been a matter of state law, that has been our tradition” is warped… historically we did not allow women to vote or all men to be free; should these amendments have been blocked before the nation could even take up the debate?
Stumble it!