Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse

[willowisp]

A bill is going to be introduced to the House of Representatives which, if passed, would strip courts of the right to declare parts of the 1996 "Defense of Marriage Act" unconstitutional. One of the assemblymen has a defense for the bill here. This is a .doc file, though my Open Office was able to read it. I almost wish it hadn't.

On the good side, since I just can't bear to leave that as the only content of the post, people interested in supporting bi/gay/les folks may want to check out the green_stripe community.

Comments

[echoweaver.livejournal.com]

It don't work that way. The legislative branch can't forbid the Supreme Court from declaring anything unconstititional. Not that they might not be trying (I'm not familiar with this bill), but I can't see how it could have any actual weight as law.

[mirielkitsune.livejournal.com]

Well, except that congress has the right to change the constitution itself. In fact, they can ever get rid of the first ten amendments, or at least negate them. O.o

Fortunately, I think most of our congress forgets this, and lets not remind them O.o

[callicrates.livejournal.com]

Even if they could pass a bill to declare that "Law X is not subject to judicial review" - and this is something willowisp and I discussed over dinner last night - Congress has an insurmountable chicken-and-the-egg problem. Even if such a bill B could have legal force (which I doubt), one could first attack B in the courts as unenforceable, then go after X. Putting a clause in B to the effect that "This bill is not subject to judicial review" won't work either. Go after that clause in particular.

(If any of y'all are constitutional scholars, please do correct me where I'm wrong.)

Personally I don't see any way for Congress to enforce one particular definition of marriage without trampling all over either states' rights or the Constitution. If individual states want to define it one way or another, then the full-faith-and-credit clause in the Constitution comes into play: that can't be overridden without an amendment whose passage I consider overwhelmingly unlikely. If Congress wants to enforce the definition themselves, I think they wind up clobbering a state's traditional right to set standards for marriage, divorce, et cetera for itself. (Again, I may be wrong.)

I will note at this point that many, many more bills are proposed than ever get submitted, many more are submitted than ever make it to the House floor, and not all of those ever make it to an up-or-down vote.

[mirielkitsune.livejournal.com]

Ack.

I followed the link and was poking around. Apparently, that...thing....is not a law but a proposed amendment O.o

But yes, the fact is, even though the republicans are in charge of congress right now, not all of them are ultra right-wingers.