Constitution confliction?
602451
Interesting point.  The 9th was put forth to clarify that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  \n\nSo in this case, saying the Constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage is a moot point.  \n\nThe 14th says, in part, "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\n\nSo it could be interpreted that "equal protection" would apply to those legal rights regarding heterosexual marriage as being equally applied to gay marriage. \n\nI'm not a legal scholar (obviously), but I see your point.
735483
You hit the problem right on the head. A good answer would be a mix of both views if the public is totally against you you should follow the public unless the public wants to ignore or over ride the constitution. If the public doesn't care or is evenly split then the politicians personal convictions should win out. That would solve the problem don't you think?
180442
Here's the actual wording of the Constitution on how it can be amended:\n\n"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."\n\nIf you need clarification, Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary (it's long, but it's worth it):\n\n"The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.\n\nThe first option must begin in Congress which, by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum) in each house, may initiate an amendment. Alternatively, the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments. To date, all amendments have been proposed by Congress; although state legislatures have on occasion requested the calling of a convention, no such request has yet received the concurrence required for such a convention.\n\nIn either case, amendments must have the approval of the legislatures or of smaller ratifying conventions within three-fourths of the states before becoming part of the Constitution. All amendments save one have been submitted to the state legislatures for ratification; only the 21st Amendment was ratified by individual conventions in the states.\n\nUnlike most constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text, rather than being revisions of or insertions into the main articles. There is no provision for expunging from the text obsolete or rescinded provisions."
990930
Dude, calm down.\nFirst of all, the Constitution and its amendments are not laws.  If something contradicts the constitution it is deemed unconstitutional.  Not illegal.\nSecond.  Bush can't write a bill let alone pass a bill.  Did you ever hear that School House Rock song "I'm Only A Bill". . .Only Congress can pass law and write bills.  The president can either sign it, veto it, or ignore it.  Learn some civics.  What you are referring to is Executive Order 13198 (and a handful of others subsequent to this one) executed on January 29, 2001.  And before you go jumping off a bridge, read them carefully.  They don't say what you apparently think.\nThird.  You are incorrect about your interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings regarding whatever specific faith based initiative you are stuck on.  If the Supreme Court has ruled and it exists, you must be wrong.  QED.\nFourth.  Saying that you don't mind as long as ALL religions are represented is a very cute way of avoiding saying what's really in your heart.  If we represent ALL then we really are representing NONE.\nLast.  There are numerous things that are better done by religious and other community organizations (as opposed to the government).  For example, the Catholic Church does a wonderful job providing adoption services for disabled orphans.  A better job than the government.  The church avoids some of the thornier issues regarding church/state by separating its adoption services from its core purpose (to grossly paraphrase, a requirement for receiving federal money).\nBut really dude, calm down.
163448
the funny thing about the constitution is that it is exactly as democratic as anyone wants it to be (or doesn't).  basically it can be anything based on your interpretation of it.\n\nan example.  the constitution protects our freedom of speech.  meanwhile, there are a thousand laws limiting this freedom.  some are for legitimate reasons and some aren't.  someone like george w. bush reads the constitution and believes that we as americans have very few civil liberties, that it is okay for him to put restrictions on our "constitutionally protected" rights of free speech, religion, assembly, privacy, due process, and many, many more, and that these rights can be sacrificed in order to protect "national security".  other people and organizations, such as the ACLU or the democratic party before its spine mysteriously disappeared a few years ago, believe that these rights should not be infringed, ever, for any reason.  \n\nthis just goes to show how two different people can read the same thing and come away with two completely different opinions about what it actually means.
594147
Are you moderate in supporting the Constitution? Left, right, up, down, middle - if you believe in compromising the Constitution, your rights, liberties and freedoms so you can be calmly in the middle, then I guess go ahead.\n\nI am adamantly opposed to governments growing beyond their authorized limits. About 2/3 of the federal budget is on unconstitutional expenditures. The government just passed that campaign finance reform bill that seriously attacked your 1st amendment rights. The government is failing to stop the influx of illegal aliens. The Constitution is either the law of the land, or it's a quaint historical document of no importance. There is no 'middle ground' there.\n\nI must disagree with your position. It's how we lost so many of our rights and freedoms in the first place.
847124
The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/index3.html\n\nThe Constitution of the United States\n\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html\n\nhttp://www.awerty.addr.com/cons2.html\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html\n\nPREAMBLE\n\nWe, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.\n\nConstitution of the United States.\n\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html\n\nThe U.S. Constitution is the oldest constitution still in effect in the world. Test your knowledge of this important document.\n\nhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/constitution/quiz/\n\nhttp://www.infoplease.com/spot/usconstitutionquizzes.html\n\nhttp://www.expertrating.com/quizzes/us-constitution-quiz.asp\n\nStudy Tool for the Constitution\n\nhttp://home.att.net/~standardsalert_topics/Const_Study_Tool_to_Amendment_XXVII.htm#_The_Constitution,_with\n\nGood luck.\n\nKevin, Liverpool, England.
681694
Unfortunately, we can not pick and choose which constitutional rights we want to enforce. It is a package deal. I agree with you that this is a big problem and very costly to us hard working, tax paying citizens. I see only one way to resolve it. SECURE OUR BORDERS. Contact the Minuteman Project at www.minutemanhq.com    There are many ways each of us can help eliminate this problem, we just have to take the first step.  \n\nUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall.
222824
Because Federal Law is above state law.  States can not create laws that conflict with the constitution.
932286
What in the world are you talking about?????? The only changes allowed to the Constitution are through amendemnts. Look them up!
22849
Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the body of the constitution states...\n"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be boundthereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state notwithstanding."\n\nPretty much means that whatever law the federal government creates it overrides any other law created by both the states and the senate.\nKind of a scary precedent when you think of it.\n\nnow this may not directly answer your question but its a start, you should read the constitution yourself, because it was creaded in a vague reference to be interpreted, everyone interperates things differently.
1099151
It depends on what you mean by "actually."\n\nIn a pragmatic sense, whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says is constitutional is "actually" constitutional.\n\nPerhaps you mean, "Should it be constitutional?"  Well, obviously there are arguments on both sides -- and they were raised in Marbury v. Madison -- but I would have to agree with the Supreme Court:  What would REALLY throw off the balance of powers is if there were no checks and balances to prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.\n\nFinally, perhaps you mean, "Was this what the Framers intended?"  Again, this was argued in Marbury v. Madison.  Probably the answer would be that some did, and some didn't.  However, what is the point of writing a constitution that limits the powers of Congress if there's no way to enforce the limitations?
569214
Who else out there believes that the Constitution of the United States is wrong?
568539
The "constitution test"????
329283
When you say "the president wants the constitution reviewed" you do not explain what you mean by that.  Is there a specific news story behind this?\n\nWithout those details, I'll say this:\nIf it's just "reviewing" the Constitution to be sure of what it says about a specific issue that should not be a problem.  It's perfectly fine -- in fact I would WANT the President, Congress & the courts-- to be checking the Constitution when they are seeking to do any of the following:\n\n1) to make sure that something they want to do is not against the Constitution, or to show others how what they have done or are going to do IS supported by the Constitution\n\n2) if they think what some other branch of government has done or is thinking of doing goes against the Constitution, so they can fight for that action to be changed\n\n3) if there is a problem that it seems cannot be solved just by passing laws or by executive orders, something that needs a change in the Constitution.  Reviewing the Constitution an then deciding what sort of Constitutional AMENDMENT they want to propose for Congress and the state legislatures to act on\n\nPlease note that the way our government is set up there have always been, and will always be, struggles between the different branches of government over which powers each of them has according to the Constitution. EVERY President has fought for powers they believe they need and that the Constitution gives to them, to carry out their job.  And because Congress ALSO likes to maximize its power, there will always be people in Congress who say that the President does NOT have the powers he is claiming.   The back-and-forth between the branches to figure this all out is a GOOD thing, because it keeps one branch grom taking all the power for itself.  \n\nIn any case, except by the amendment process-- that is, the process the Constitution itself provides for!-- there is no legitimate way for ANY branch of government to change the Constitution.  But I have not heard of any case where the President is suggesting doing this.\n\nAs for the "selfiah interest" part -- again, you have not told us exactly what issue this is all about.  But if it's simply part of the back-and-forth between the branches that I mentioned above, that has gone on for more than 200 years now, I don't see how that is "selfish interest".\n\n(I'm also amazed at those who answered by attacking the President without even knowing WHAT issue you have in mind, without hearing a single fact of the case!!)
727365
constitution test?  You need to be more specific.
537020
Unconstitutional is all. Of course disregarding the constitution has never been a problem for Bush. He has broken both domestic and international law and I hope that someday he has to answer for it.