(no subject)

[askye]

Maybe I'm really slow, but I can't understand how Bush can say he wants judges that will strictly interpret the Constitution while he also wants to get an amendment passed that would limit marriage to heterosexuals.

Wouldn't want strict interpretation of the Constitution mean you don't want it to be amended?

Comments

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

Well, the judicial branch has nothing to do with amending the Constitution. The Constitution--which has provisions within it for amending the Constitution, so there is nothing unconstitutional about changing the constitution as long as you follow the law--would be amended by the states. To become law, amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the states by legislative action or convention. Frankly, the chances of this happening any time soon are slim, and Bush has got to know it.

But anyway, I suppose that if the marriage amendment were ratified, the people who put it in there would want to make sure we had judges who'd interpret it strictly as it's written.