here we go again

[rkt]

see, now if the goddamned house had done their motherfucking job, i would not have to be here proseletyizing to the (at least mostly) converted. but noooooooooooooooo. they had to go and fuck up, pissing me off to the n-th degree.

in case you haven't heard, your beloved house of represntatives has decided that the notion of the gays marrying each other is so horrifying, that they were compeleld to chuck our system of governmental checks and balances out the window.see articles below for further details

what does this mean for you, boys and girls?

besides congress having the potential for congress to have an unholy power over you, you MUST reach out and touch your senator once again. fuck hrc's mass email, (those things are silly, anyway).
harrass call your senators.
order them to work for you and the constitution.

to save you work, i've cut and pasted the last set.:
remember to include your name
that you're registered voting constituent
and how you really feel about the matter read that they shoud just say NO again

arizona
jon l. kyl*: 202-224-4521 (dc) 520-575-8633 (tucson) 602-840-1891.
john mccain: 202-224-2235 (dc), 480-897-6289 (tempe)

california
barbara boxer: 202-224-3553 (dc), 415-403-0100 (san francisco)
diane feinstein: 202-224-3841 (dc), 415-393-0707 (san francisco)

colorado
sen. wayne allard*: 202-224-5852 (dc), 303-220-7414 (district offices: englewood)
sen. ben nighthorse campbell: 202-224-5852 (dc), 303-843-4100 (district offices: greenwood village)

florida
bob graham: 202-224-3041(dc), 813-228-2476 (tampa)
bill nelson 1-888-671-4091, 202-224-5274 (dc), 813-225-7040 (tampa)

maryland
barbara mikulski: 202-224-4654 (dc), 410-962-4510 (baltimore)
paul sarbanes: 202-224-4524 (dc) 410-962-4436 (baltimore)

michigan
debbie a stabenow:202-224-4822 (dc), 616-975-0052 (grand rapids)
carl levin: 1-800-851-0030 (toll free), 202-224-6221 (dc), 616-456-2531 (grand rapids)

minnesota
mark dayton: 1-888-224-9043 (toll free), 612-727-5220 (Fort Snelling)
norm coleman*: 1-800-642-6041 (toll free), 651-645-0323 (st. paul),

new jersey
frank r. lautenberg: 1-888-398-1642, 202-224-3224 (dc), 973-639-8704 (newark)
jon s. corzine: 202-224-4744 (dc), 973-645-3030 (newark), 856-757-5353 (barrington)

new mexico
jeff bingaman: 1-800-443-8658, 202-224-5521 (dc), 505-346-6601 (albuquerque)
pete v domenici: 202-224-6621 (dc), 505-346-6791 (abq)

new york
charles schumer: 212-486-4430 (nyc) 202-224-6542 (dc)
hillary clinton: 212-688-6262 (nyc) 202-224-4451 (dc)

ohio
mike dewine: 1-800-205-OHIO(6446) , 202-224-2315 (dc), 216-522-7272 (cleveland) , 614-469-5186 (columbus)
george v. voinovich: 202-224-3353 (dc), 216-522-7095 (cleveland), 614-469-6697 (columbus)

rhode island
jack reed: 1-800-284-4200 , 202-224-4642 (dc), 401-943-3100 (cranston), 401-528-5200 (providence)
lincoln d. chafee: 202-224-2921 (dc), 401-453-5294 (providence), 401-845-0700 (newport)

wisconsin
herbert h. kohl: 1-800-247-5645, 202-224-5653 (dc), 414-297-4451 (milwaukee), 608-264-5338 (madison), 608-796-0045 (la crosse)
russ feingold: 202-224-5323 (dc), 414-276-7282 (milwaukee), 608-782-5585 (la crosse), (no madison number listed)

hrc one call fits all (as long as someone in your representative's office answers the phone) -800-672-3184.

(falwell's easy access page is no longer accessible. i'll be in another "confidential" training all day friday. and work overnight friday night, so i won't get back to this until then. if i get so bored, i'll end up looking up all 50 states.)



New bill would block federal judges from hearing key gay-marriage cases
Off the Court
by Alan Hirsch
July 15th, 2004 2:10 PM

We've been watching the wrong game.

With attention focused on the doomed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the media, general public, and gay rights supporters are overlooking a more lively threat: H.R. 3313, the so-called Marriage Protection Act.

The constitutional amendment was merely an opportunity for conservative members of Congress to throw red meat to the base. Opponents of same-sex marriage knew the amendment wouldn't pass, so they crafted a fallback plan: the Marriage Protection Act, which says federal courts may not hear cases from gay couples challenging the eight-year-old federal law that prohibits them from marrying. If the bill passes, many states will refuse to recognize the marriage of a gay couple hitched in another state. Under today's rules, the couple could bring suit in federal court, asking that the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, be ruled unconstitutional. If the Marriage Protection Act becomes law, no federal court could take the case.

Does that sound outlandish? Brace yourself for a primer on the anti-gay approach to constitutional law. The conservatives' nightmare has long been that gay and lesbian couples will marry in Massachusetts or some other enlightened state, then be free to move anywhere and enjoy the state and federal benefits that accompany marriage. In 1996, they responded with DOMA, which declares that no state must recognize another state's marriage of a same-sex couple.

DOMA amounts to an end-run around Article Four of the Constitution, which says that the public acts of each state (such as marriage licenses) must be honored in every state. Recognizing that DOMA is constitutionally vulnerable, to put it mildly, opponents of same-sex marriage now push the Marriage Protection Act. It solves DOMA's constitutional infirmities the easy way, by saying that federal courts may not hear interstate cases involving DOMA, and thus cannot declare it unconstitutional. Even the U.S. Supreme Court would be shut out.

This effort to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction may itself be unconstitutional. The Constitution pointedly gives federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, the ability to unify federal law. It also gives federal judges life tenure to insulate them from public pressure. But if the Marriage Protection Act passes, DOMA's fate would rest with state judges, many of whom face election and are prone to public pressure. Worse still, courts in some states would find DOMA unconstitutional while courts in other states would hold otherwise.

Supporters of the act point to Article Three of the Constitution, which says federal courts' jurisdiction is subject to "such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Many legal scholars, however, argue that the "exceptions clause" was never intended to permit stripping all federal courts of authority to hear cases arising under the Constitution or federal law, especially where fundamental rights are concerned.

Regardless of the precise meaning of the exceptions clause, court-stripping threatens a fundamental constitutional principle: separation of powers. More than two centuries ago, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall declared it "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Federal judicial review safeguards against the tyranny of the majority that rightly concerned the framers.

If courts go too far, the American people can amend the Constitution. DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act are efforts to circumvent that process. They amount to an attempt to change the Constitution without amending it.

This is nothing new. In recent years, disgruntled members of Congress have introduced legislation to strip the courts of jurisdiction on various controversial issues, including abortion, busing, and school prayer. Typically, the bill effectively overrides a Court decision (for example, declaring that life begins at conception, in an effort to make abortion illegal) and then declares that some or all federal courts may not hear a case on this issue.

Fortunately, these attempts to short-circuit the Constitution have failed. If we start down the court-stripping road, there's no telling where we'll end up. Imagine if Congress had passed a law denying the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases challenging the president's authority to detain enemy combatants indefinitely. Our delicate constitutional balance will be upended if federal courts cannot prevent overreaching by the other branches.

The Marriage Protection Act is a double affront. Gays, who crave equal treatment in general, and the right to marry in particular, would obviously be harmed. The act should alarm not just them and their supporters but anyone concerned about the Constitution.

Alan Hirsch is a visiting professor of constitutional law at Williams College and senior consultant to the UCLA School of Law's Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0429/hirsch.php





The Associated Press
Updated: 4:00 p.m. ET July 22, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Republican-led House voted Thursday to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by other states.

The Marriage Protection Act was adopted by a 233-194 vote, buoyed by backing from the Bush administration. Last week, the Senate dealt gay marriage opponents a setback by failing to advance a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.

Federal judges, unelected and given lifetime appointments, “must not be allowed to rewrite marriage policy for the states,” Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., said.

Democrats said the bill was an election-year distraction, calling it an unconstitutional attack on gays in America and the federal judiciary. They said it would set a precedent that Congress could use to shield any future legislation from federal judicial review.

“They couldn’t amend the Constitution last week so they’re trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said.

The legislation faces long odds in the closely divided Senate, but were it to become law, gays and lesbians seeking to have their marriages recognized could seek help only from state courts.

The legislation would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5489544/

Comments

[hardvice.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I'd almost like to see this one played out in the courts. It's not the first time Congress has tried to do this sort of thing.

The Religious Freedoms Restoration Act comes to mind as a recent example, basically enacted to overrule a rather tenuous 5-4 Supreme Court decision. It was almost immediately invalidated, 9-0. Scalia wrote possibly the most scathing opinion I've ever read.

My point is: Federal courts do not take attempts to regulate their authority lightly. Even if this piece of crap somehow made it out of the Senate, it's not worth the paper it's written on. At most, it will insure one appeal: the trial judge will probably consider himself bound by it, but the very first appellate judge to hear a case will start by striking it down, regardless of who appointed her—and quite likely, it will happen via an interlocutory appeal at the trial level. Then every other Federal court will confirm its invalidity, almost assuredly unanimously, all the way up to the Supreme Court, who are almost guaranteed to hear ir. And that's an opinion I want to read, if for no other reason than because it will be their only chance to stand up for themselves with respect to all of this "activist judges" bullshit.

I'm more troubled about why they'd even bother. It's so clearly beyond the pale that I can't see what they hope to gain by it. Even if it's just an attempt to paint Democrats who voted against it as pro-gay marriage, or an attempt to keep the issue live, it seems like the inevitable backlash will prove more harmful than any gain they might be hoping for.

[bluebuckeye.livejournal.com]

I hope you don't mind but I stole the senator name/number list in hopes that everyone on my friends list will get pissed and call their senators.

I totally understand your rage.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

no problem.
dont forget the hrc's connection number for all states (but espcially not on the list). i only covered states i knew people on my friends list.
the original source (afa.net) no longer has the mega-list up at this time.
800-672-3184.

i haven't been able to find as nice of a collection of nmbers yet.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

i'm troubled easily these days.
and have that paranoia tendency thing i think is just inherent.

i have no faith that future supreme courts will protect their own power. or that bushie-boy won't find a way to circumvent the system even more by cutting off the court's power to strike down anything unconstitional congress passes.

that i've seen commercials (re: norm coleman) defending the fma but haven't seen any countering ads declaring its unconstitutionality, gives me a headache.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

http://www.pointofview.net/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID320166%7CCHID671576,00.html

mega list of numbers. i'm particularly fond of this site because i heart the pictures of the radio hosts.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

http://www.pointofview.net/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID320166%7CCHID671576,00.html

mega list of numbers. i'm particularly fond of this site because i heart the pictures of the radio hosts.