Tim Huelskamp's Marriage Protection Amendment to Constitution

[tsai3904]

H. J. Res. 51

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Marriage Protection Amendment’’.

SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘‘ARTICLE—

‘‘Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’

Cosponsors (36):


Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 6/28/2013
Rep Bentivolio, Kerry L. [MI-11] - 7/10/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] - 6/28/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 6/28/2013
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 7/10/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] - 6/28/2013
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 7/10/2013
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Hudson, Richard [NC-8] - 7/11/2013
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] - 6/28/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep LaMalfa, Doug [CA-1] - 7/10/2013
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 6/28/2013
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 7/9/2013
Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] - 6/28/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 6/28/2013
Rep Nugent, Richard B. [FL-11] - 7/10/2013
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] - 7/11/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 6/28/2013
Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-6] - 6/28/2013
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 6/28/2013
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] - 6/28/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 6/28/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 6/28/2013
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-3] - 7/9/2013(withdrawn - 7/10/2013)

[WM_in_MO]

Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 6/28/2013
Rep Bentivolio, Kerry L. [MI-11] - 7/10/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] - 6/28/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 6/28/2013
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 7/10/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] - 6/28/2013
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 7/10/2013
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Hudson, Richard [NC-8] - 7/11/2013
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] - 6/28/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep LaMalfa, Doug [CA-1] - 7/10/2013
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 6/28/2013
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 7/9/2013
Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] - 6/28/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 6/28/2013
Rep Nugent, Richard B. [FL-11] - 7/10/2013
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] - 7/11/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 6/28/2013
Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-6] - 6/28/2013
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 6/28/2013
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] - 6/28/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 6/28/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 6/28/2013
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-3] - 7/9/2013(withdrawn - 7/10/2013)

WELP

[Antischism]

Fuck outta here.

[fr33]

Horrible...

[eduardo89]

Sad that Massie and Amash haven't signed on.

[Brett85]

Paul Broun is a strong social conservative, so no one should be surprised that he supports this. He's said that he's a Constitutionalist rather than a libertarian, and there's nothing unconstitutional about a Constitutional amendment, which is likely why Broun doesn't have a problem with the amendment.

[Brett85]

And Jones is a paleo conservative and not a libertarian.

[eduardo89]

I wish this amendment had been passed when Utah was admitted into the Union...probably would have passed back then, these days with the homosexual lobby having the power they do, there's no chance.

[Carlybee]

Goverment needs to get out of the marriage business

[fr33]

When they are finished with it, it will probably mandate the marriages take place in churches and that missionary position is the legal way to consumate.

[eduardo89]

When they are finished with it, it will probably mandate the marriages take place in churches and that missionary position is the legal way to consumate.

When has anyone advocated that?

[DamianTV]

Not Constitutional.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The effort to pass an Amendment that denys the people the ability to have a same sex marriage is exactly that, it Denies, which, according to the 9th, is Unconstitutional. To make it constitutional, the 9th Amendment would first need to be Repealed, not just blaitantly ignored.

The problem here is that everyone thinks they have a Right to define what Marriage between two other people is. Insurance thinks they have more Rights than the People; they simply dont want to pay. Churches try to impose their beliefs by acting like Churches have more Rights than the People. And Govt typically just ignores Rights, period. And when they arent, they are doing everything in their power to both deny and disparage the people because Govt believes that the People get their Rights from the Govt.

The definition of Marriage needs to be left up to the two People that are getting Married. Rights also end when they forcibly take from someone else, hence why I left Pastors and Judges out of who gets to define what Marriage is. If this were to Enumerate Rights, then Pastors and Judges can not be required to participate against their will, which would violate the Rights of the Person requested to perform the Ceremony (even if this Right is not Enumerated). At the same time, the Pastors and Judges can not just flat out deny those two People the Right to get married by someone else that will agree to perform the ceremony. They also do not have the Rights to violate another Persons Rights, which is where true Rights end.

[pcosmar]

Goverment needs to get out of the marriage business

This^^^

The constitution ,, if amended at all, should be to the effect that Marriage (or any private contract) is none of the governments business in any way shape or form.

[JCDenton0451]

Paul Broun is a strong social conservative, so no one should be surprised that he supports this. He's said that he's a Constitutionalist rather than a libertarian, and there's nothing unconstitutional about a Constitutional amendment, which is likely why Broun doesn't have a problem with the amendment.
LOLOL

Spoken like a Progressive!

[Sola_Fide]

Government doesn't protect anything, it destroys it. The only solution is a separation of government and marriage.

[pcosmar]

When has anyone advocated that?

Florida (dumb) laws
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/florida

When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.

/ask a silly question

and more,,,
http://www.divinecaroline.com/entertainment/puritan-sex-laws-are-still-books

[nobody's_hero]

LOLOL

Spoken like a Progressive!

There have been some pretty off the wall amendments proposed throughout history. It's not about prog-or conservative.

There was nothing unconstitutional about the alcohol ban we once had in our constitution. It was proposed and ratified according to the procedures outlined in the Constitution.

What you should be arguing is whether or not something is constitutional makes it practical or sensible. As it turns out, a ban on alcohol was perhaps the stupidest idea ever concocted when put into practice.

Fast forward to today, and we have the war on drugs, which was never enacted through constitutional amendments. It is not practical nor is it constitutional.

I have an inkling more respect for someone like Broun who at least acknowledges a lawful way to enact change versus an amendment, versus someone like Pelosi who thinks a simple majority of 218 members of congress and 51 senators can pass a bill to tell 300 million Americans that they WILL participate in a healthcare overhaul and love it.

[ZENemy]

"oh baby I love you so much, you know what would make our relationship the best? If we ask the government to take over our relationship and give us permission to love"


Said nobody, ever.

Get the Gov out of marriage, I am god damn lucky to have a girl that understands that if her and I get married it will be a family thing ONLY, no contracts, no name sharing, nothing. We will have a ceremony and family, it will stop there.

[Acala]

So I guess that all the other problems that are threatening to totally destroy the country - like the debt that can never be paid, the police state DHS, the bankrupt social programs, and so on - all fixed? Good. Now we can focus on the inane trivia.

[ZENemy]

So I guess that all the other problems that are threatening to totally destroy the country - like the debt that can never be paid, the police state DHS, the bankrupt social programs, and so on - all fixed? Good. Now we can focus on the inane trivia.

yes, gay people are the most important thing EVER! I cannot wait till the zimmerman trial is over so we can finally go back to the gays and how we can help them be more free.

[The Free Hornet]

"union of a man and a woman."

And who determines that? (the state licensed doctor):


Physical gender is not always just a matter of XX or XY, girl or boy. In approximately one out of every 100 births, seemingly tiny errors occur during the various stages of fetal sex differentiation, causing a baby's body to develop abnormally.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/intersex-spectrum.html

Although one might assume a wide degree of latitude in these determinations, some past threads here leave me skeptical.


*******************


Sad that Massie and Amash haven't signed on.

Maybe they want to afford the government we have before adding to the tax burden.


*******************



Paul Broun is a strong social conservative, so no one should be surprised that he supports this. He's said that he's a Constitutionalist rather than a libertarian, and there's nothing unconstitutional about a Constitutional amendment, which is likely why Broun doesn't have a problem with the amendment.

If he doesn't have a problem with the amendment, it's likely due to being an ignorant homophobe. But you've touched on a pet peeve which is a mistake that Ron Paul makes in discussing what the government can do versus what it should do. Often this gave the impression that he was OK with states running roughshod over liberties when - in point of fact - he was merely giving the legal perspective from POTUS or Congress.

Being OK with a properly passed amendment might make for a good technocrat, but never a political philosopher or even a politician.

[LibertyEagle]

LOLOL

Spoken like a Progressive!

How so? Are you saying that constitutional amendments are somehow unconstitutional? Do tell.

[Brett85]

LOLOL

Spoken like a Progressive!

You're pretty clearly the progressive with your views in favor of funding Planned Parenthood and the like. I would prefer that this issue be handled by the states, but there's absolutely no way that anyone can claim that a Constitutional amendment can ever be unconstitutional. Amending the Constitution by definition can't be unconstitutional. I shouldn't even have to explain this.

[Nobexliberty]

Modern marriages in a nutshell. Lets forget about the IRS and Income taxes for this that will most likely happen alot.
http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/sex-cheating-divorce-money-wedding-ecards-someecards.png

[dinosaur]

And who determines that? (the state licensed doctor):

Apparently this amendment just mandates that obamacare pay for the sex change operation before you will be allowed to "marry", whatever that means. LOL at conservatives who think that this will accomplish anything in a society that can't even agree on definitions of male and female. Marriage belongs to the church anyway, not the state.

[JCDenton0451]

How so? Are you saying that constitutional amendments are somehow unconstitutional? Do tell.

Amending the Constitution defeats the purpose of Constitutional Conservatism imo, and people who want to amend the Constitution to reflect their personal religious views should stop calling themselves that way.

[pcosmar]

You're pretty clearly the progressive with your views in favor of funding Planned Parenthood and the like. I would prefer that this issue be handled by the states, but there's absolutely no way that anyone can claim that a Constitutional amendment can ever be unconstitutional. Amending the Constitution by definition can't be unconstitutional. I shouldn't even have to explain this.

No,, but a proposed amendment can be contrary to the spirit and intent of the original document,, not to mention being incredibly stupid.

see Alcohol Prohibition.

[eduardo89]

Amending the Constitution defeats the purpose of Constitutional Conservatism imo, and people who want to amend the Constitution to reflect their personal religious views should stop themselves that way.

So you're saying it's not conservative or constitutional for conservatives and constitutionalists to want to add a balanced budget amendment, human life amendment, term limits, and marriage amendment? :rolleyes:

[Ranger29860]

FUCKING ASSHOLES!

[Carlybee]

yes, gay people are the most important thing EVER! I cannot wait till the zimmerman trial is over so we can finally go back to the gays and how we can help them be more free.


No kidding....how "liberty movement" of them.

[Nobexliberty]

Modern marriages in a nutshell. Lets forget about the IRS and Income taxes for this that will most likely happen alot.
http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/sex-cheating-divorce-money-wedding-ecards-someecards.png

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a7b5e21430fd5301fd40938178ef3cdc

And gays have more pre marital sex then straight so it is a statistical extremely likely to end in a divorce court but who gives a damn about IRS and foreign wars if they can have a few years of bliss.

[Brett85]

No,, but a proposed amendment can be contrary to the spirit and intent of the original document,, not to mention being incredibly stupid.

see Alcohol Prohibition.

Right, but I was just explaining that it's not inconsistent for someone who describes themselves as being a "strict Constitutionalist" to vote in favor of this amendment.

[Ranger29860]

When has anyone advocated that?

Sodomy laws?

[DamianTV]

You're pretty clearly the progressive with your views in favor of funding Planned Parenthood and the like. I would prefer that this issue be handled by the states, but there's absolutely no way that anyone can claim that a Constitutional amendment can ever be unconstitutional. Amending the Constitution by definition can't be unconstitutional. I shouldn't even have to explain this.

The act of Amending the Constitution itself isnt Unconstitutional. What determines if something is Unconsitutional is what the Amendment does. If it DENIES or DISPARAGES Unenumerated Rights, then it is Unconstitutional. That goes for both Gay Rights and Alcohol Prohibition. Unfortunately, these are just words on paper, and their Interpreation is where our biggest problems come from. I mean fuck, just look at how our Govt as a whole pretty much flat out ignores every restriction placed upon them. They think they can get away with it because they are the ones that get to do the Interpreting. Shit, if the 10 commandments were the Bill of Rights designed to be Limitations on Govt, and Govt was left to Interpret the 10 commandments how ever they wanted, they'd come right out and read "Thou Shall Not Kill" as YOU dont have the right to harm anyone but I can kill who ever I want.

Govt believes that NO RULES can restrict ANY of its actions, and that its job is ONLY to restrict, deny, and disparage the Rights of the People of ALL nations, of ALL color, of ALL religions, and ALL forms of definition that one person can be different from another.

[eduardo89]

Sodomy laws?

What sodomy law has said that you have to get married in a church and that the only acceptable position for procreation is missionary?

[Brett85]

Amending the Constitution defeats the purpose of Constitutional Conservatism imo, and people who want to amend the Constitution to reflect their personal religious views should stop calling themselves that way.

That's your personal opinion, but how does that prove your original assertion that a Constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional?

[pcosmar]

What sodomy law has said that you have to get married in a church and that the only acceptable position for procreation is missionary?

Posted in this thread. Laws in both Florida and DC. (in answer to your original question)
as well as other stupid fucking laws.

[Brett85]

The act of Amending the Constitution itself isnt Unconstitutional. What determines if something is Unconsitutional is what the Amendment does. If it DENIES or DISPARAGES Unenumerated Rights, then it is Unconstitutional.

That simply isn't true. Congress and the states could pass a Constitutional amendment that repealed the 4th amendment, and it would be an absolutely terrible amendment, but it would be constitutional since it was done through the amendment process.

[Ranger29860]

What sodomy law has said that you have to get married in a church and that the only acceptable position for procreation is missionary?

The old UCMJ sodomy law used to say that ( as per the missionary position only being valid) Not to mention go read any states sodomy laws and you might be shocked to find most if not all say missionary is the only acceptable position. Granted most of them are unconstitutional and just have never been taken off the books but it shows that there was at least at one time a push for exactly what you said about sex positions.

[eduardo89]

Posted in this thread. Laws in both Florida and DC. (in answer to your original question)
as well as other stupid fucking laws.

Sorry, but http://www.dumblaws.com/ isn't a valid source, especially when they don't have any citations to the law in question. Find me something from the State of Florida.

[pcosmar]

That simply isn't true. Congress and the states could pass a Constitutional amendment that repealed the 4th amendment, and it would be an absolutely terrible amendment, but it would be constitutional since it was done through the amendment process.

Or repealing the 2nd,, which has been proposed as well..

and the whole right to a trial or representation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGdMxOKiMHo

[JCDenton0451]

So you're saying it's not conservative or constitutional for conservatives and constitutionalists to want to add a balanced budget amendment, human life amendment, term limits, and marriage amendment? :rolleyes:

Well, you are arguing for a reform, a change in a long-standing government policy, a transformation. That's definitely no Conservatism. I wouldn't call it Progressive either. Perharps, a word "Regressive" applies?

SoCons really do want to drag the country back to the 1950s, as if the Sexual Revolution never happened. Their cause is doomed.

[Carlybee]

Where is the amendment to dismantle the DHS? That concerns me a hell of a lot more than whether 2 people of the same sex can get married only if the government says so. Wow..what a screwed up set of priorities and guaranteed general election poison.

[eduardo89]

The old UCMJ sodomy law used to say that ( as per the missionary position only being valid) Not to mention go read any states sodomy laws and you might be shocked to find most if not all say missionary is the only acceptable position. Granted most of them are unconstitutional and just have never been taken off the books but it shows that there was at least at one time a push for exactly what you said about sex positions.

Provide sources. None of that is true.

The UCMJ does not, and has, specify sexual positions, though it does specify certain sexual ACTIONS which are considered inappropriate or deviant.

[Brett85]

Well, you are arguing for a reform, a change in a long-standing government policy, a transformation. That's definitely no Conservatism. I wouldn't call it Progressive either. Perharps, a word "Regressive" applies?

SoCons really do want to drag the country back to the 1950s, as if the Sexual Revolution never happened. Their cause is doomed.

So marriage hasn't been defined as between a man and a woman since the 1950's? :confused:

[JCDenton0451]

So marriage hasn't been defined as between a man and a woman since the 1950's? :confused:

The problem with "Constitutional Conservatives" amending the Constitution is that changing the Constitution is NOT a Conservative action in nature. Conservatives are supposed to uphold the existing order, not change it. This is how I see it. Unfortunately, for many socons "Conservatism" means forcing their theocratic agenda on an unwilling population.

[nobody's_hero]

Or repealing the 2nd,, which has been proposed as well..

and the whole right to a trial or representation.


If the 2nd Amendment were ever repealed, I think we'd see turmoil just as we did with alcohol prohibition. That's what I was saying earlier about constitutional amendments not necessarily being practical, even though they'd be constitutional.

Truly I think a homosexual marriage ban of some sort would suffer a similar fate. (maybe not drive by's and gang wars, but just general unenforceability). People would still want to partner up and/or marry, whether or not the state recognized it.

And let me end this on a cynical and somewhat joking comment:

If anyone is opposed to abortion, support gay marriage. (think about that)

[Brett85]

The problem with "Constitutional Conservatives" amending the Constitution is that changing the Constitution is NOT a Conservative action in nature. Conservatives are supposed to uphold the existing order, not change it. This is how I see it. Unfortunately, for many socons "Conservatism" means forcing their theocratic agenda on an unwilling population.

I think I would vote against this amendment due to federalism reasons but support state marriage amendments. But with my previous comment I was simply responding to your claim that "social conservatives want to drag the country back to the 1950's," as if marriage between a man and a woman hasn't been around since that time.

[pcosmar]

Sorry, but http://www.dumblaws.com/ isn't a valid source, especially when they don't have any citations to the law in question. Find me something from the State of Florida.

Not sure,, I am not a lawyer and have no books handy. I did find actual code sited for some.

from Virginia,

18.2-344. Fornication.

Â

Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have
sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty
of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

(Code 1950, �� 18.1-188, 18.1-190; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc.
14, 15.)

But you object to the source,,
How about Fox, ??

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351636,00.html

[eduardo89]

Not sure,, I am not a lawyer and have no books handy. I did find actual code sited for some.

from Virginia,

Where does that say anything about missionary?


But you object to the source,,
How about Fox,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351636,00.html

Also does not provide any sources to the actual law.

[pcosmar]

Also does not provide any sources to the actual law.

Go dig them up yourself,, it was just to answer your original question.

"Who has proposed that?"
It has been proposed,, and made law.. along with hundreds(thousands) of other stupid laws.

I am opposed to stupid laws,, and think the human race can get by with just a few.

[69360]

Why bother? It's just for show, it won't pass. Total waste of time better spent on actual important issues like the economy.

[JCDenton0451]

I think I would vote against this amendment due to federalism reasons but support state marriage amendments. But with my previous comment I was simply responding to your claim that "social conservatives want to drag the country back to the 1950's," as if marriage between a man and a woman hasn't been around since that time.

Well, Gay Marriage didn't really gain traction until the 2000s, but abortion has been the law of the land since 1973. Socons literally want to reverse the 40 years of American history, and many of them oppose contraception too, which takes us back all the way to the 1950s.

[69360]

Well, Gay Marriage didn't really gain traction until the 2000s, but abortion has been the law of the land since 1973. Socons literally want to reverse the 40 years of American history, and many of them oppose contraception too, which takes us back all the way to the 1950s.

Why is that bad? We should erase most of the last 100 years.

[Brett85]

Well, Gay Marriage didn't really gain traction until the 2000s, but abortion has been the law of the land since 1973. Socons literally want to reverse the 40 years of American history, and many of them oppose contraception too, which takes us back all the way to the 1950s.

Even most pro choice libertarians support overturning Roe v. Wade, because they rightly recognize that taking power away from the states is an anti libertarian position.

[fr33]

When has anyone advocated that?
Well sure. I hear that stuff every day where I live. These crazies sponsoring and cosponsoring this amendment are representing their crazy constituents. Every day we're told that America is a Christian nation and the gays are ruining the sanctity of marriage. Sodomy laws still exist in many states. (http://theweek.com/article/index/242412/why-do-so-many-states-still-have-anti-sodomy-laws)

You are just another authoritarian that wants to use mob violence (AKA government) to run peoples' lives. Your mob has no proven track record of "preserving" anything but does have a large record of destroying everything.

[WM_in_MO]

Goverment needs to get out of the marriage business

+rep

[JCDenton0451]

Even most pro choice libertarians support overturning Roe v. Wade, because they rightly recognize that taking power away from the states is an anti libertarian position.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If you take the view that abortion is a right, it follows that no state should have the power to legislate this right away. No abortion legislation whatsoever - now that's the proper libertarian position.

[Brett85]

Huelskamp is still are best rep in Kansas by far. Voted for the Smith/Amash amendment to the NDAA, voted against CISPA, voted for the hemp amendment, voted to defund the Libya war, voted to remove language from advocating intervention in Syria, etc. He's probably in the top 10-15 in the house overall.

[Brett85]

That doesn't make any sense to me. If you take the view that abortion is a right, it follows that no state should have the power to legislate this right away. No abortion legislation whatsoever - now that's the proper libertarian position.

Where does this "right" to an abortion appear in the Constitution?

[JCDenton0451]

Where does this "right" to an abortion appear in the Constitution?

Now, you're confusing libertarians with constitutionalists. lol

To answer your question, the Supreme Court found it somewhere, somewhere in the 14th amendment if I'm not mistaken. SC is the authority on Constitution.

[nobody's_hero]

That doesn't make any sense to me. If you take the view that abortion is a right, it follows that no state should have the power to legislate this right away. No abortion legislation whatsoever - now that's the proper libertarian position.

Undoubtedly, philosophically speaking, we should have no laws at all. Everyone should fully embrace the philosophy of liberty and make a self-conscious decision to abide by it. That's the ideal.

But, at least in terms of structure, a republican form of government (not the party, I refer to the structure) would prove much more beneficial to making in-roads for libertarianism to thrive. If we are to have such necessary evil as government, it should stand to reason that you want a government that is closest to the people as possible. It is much easier to overturn a city council ordinance than it is to overturn a SCOTUS decision. But therein lies a temptation that conservatives, progressives, and certain libertarians (apparently) fall victim to. If only we had the power of the fed.gov, we could do a lot of 'good.' I disagree with federal constitution amendments to ban gay marriage chiefly because I don't think it's played out very well for the American people for feds to have such broad-sweeping powers. I don't know that I necessarily want states to have that decision-making power, but I'd rather have 50 options than 1.

So for example, If San Fran wants to allow gay marriage, I live thousands of miles away and I say 'have at it.' But if the feds want to ban [pick any issue], I live thousands of miles away but you'd better believe that the tentacles of Washington, DC are gonna be able to reach me.

If libertarians ever want to see a return of power back to the individual, there are no short-cuts to be found through the Federal level of government. Likewise, if conservatives ever want to ban gay marriage, there are no shortcuts to be found there either.