It's funny, I just went off on right-wing conservatism in my earlier post today, and then I went to the mailbox and received a letter from United States Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Now, that’s irony!
He writes in reply to my criticism I sent to him regarding the earlier attempt by the Senate to offer an amendment to the Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It's a cute little letter filled with lots of big government ideals. I am going to include the text of the letter here for everyone to view:
"Some commentators have mischaracterized the recent debate regarding the definition of marriage. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the relevant facts surrounding the Senate debate on this issue.
"Due to the court ruling in Massachusetts earlier this year, every other state in the union may be forced to recognize a brand new definition of marriage. It is important to note that this Massachusetts ruling was handed down by a slim majority of un-elected and unaccountable state judges in one of the most liberal states in America. A decision by one small state's court can have such a wide-ranging impact because the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of our Constitution requires the official acts of one state to be recognized by every other state.
"Section I of Article IV of the United States Constitution states:
"'Full faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.'
"Thus, while each state must honor the other's [sic] laws and legal rulings, Congress maintains the right to pass national legislation, and the Constitution can be amended to reflect the will of the people. In order to avoid confusion and upheaval resulting from the Massachusetts ruling being forced on other states, the Senate recently considered a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"Amending the Constitution is a difficult process, as I believe it should be. Two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House must vote for an amendment and then three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment in order for it to become effective. on July 14, 2002, [sic] supporters of the amendment lost a procedural vote when just 48 Senators voted in favor of the amendment.
"Some have criticized the move to amend the Constitution with a simple definition of marriage. I support such a definition and strongly disagree with criticism of the amendment process. Such a process is an appropriate way to conduct this national discussion and to allow the citizens to be heard through their state and federal representatives, rather than having state judges imposetheir views on the people."
Now with all that said, what did the Senator really mean? Basically, his form letter is a rant discussing how it is somewhat acceptable to discriminate, perhaps. Now to be fair, he never came out and said that. He never even mention the homosexual community in his letter. Basically, he took the opportunity to discredit an entire state--Massachusetts! He called them "liberal" and in turn, they must be out of step with the mainstream of American values and traditions.
I must, very pointedly, disagree with the senator's disdain for the United States' judiciary. He calls them "unelected" and almost tyrannical. Perhaps, he should have read beyond Article I, Section IV, of the US Constitution and read the part about the judiciary. He asserts that the judiciary is some outside influence on our nation. I also believe he did a great misjustice to the characterization to the courts of our nation and states. He characterized them as rogue individuals, who are blind to the law, destroying the foundations of our country. Yes, they are not directly elected by the people, but they are indirectly elected by the people. Those elected individuals, such as Senator McConnell, are directly responsible for the confirmation of the president's appointments to fill judicial vacancies! This is something he conveniently left out of his letter. I am not sure, but I know that in Kentucky, certain members of the judicial branch of our state's courts are elected by the people! Perhaps, those "liberal" judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are not so removed from the people as we would be led to believe.
I must object very strongly, Mr. Senator, on this point. The judiciary, both on the federal and state levels, are very necessary. They are instruments with members that are sworn to defend the same Constitution you took an oath to defend! They are not directly elected by the people of the United States, but neither is the president! Your argument would require us to disregard the decisions and impact of both the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.In reference to the senator's comments made about one state's laws being thrust upon the rest of the Union. Perhaps, the framers of the Constitution decided that no one state should be an island upon itself. It does not say that the other states must ratify the law passed in the other state and make it part of their constitution or statutes! Therefore, I believe Senator McConnell misused the reference to Article I, Section IV.
Finally, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly remands all authority not directly invested to the Federal government by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, it is the prerogative of each state to implement and devise laws for itself. It is not the business of the Senate to legislate on the state level. As a result, I believe that the Senate acted inappropriately and abused powers it itself did not have during this particular legislativeprocess.
With that said, I look forward to hearing from Kentucky's other senator, Jim Bunning on this same issue!
No comments:
Post a Comment