ADVERTISEMENT

Alan Keyes: Gay Marriage Ruling A 'Just Cause For War'

Nov 28, 2010
83,706
37,527
113
Maryland
LINK

Joining other Religious Right activists who warn that the Supreme Court will spark a civil war if the it strikes down bans on same-sex marriage, Alan Keyes writes in WorldNetDaily today that a ruling in favor of gay rights will "be just cause for war."

Keyes claims that such a decision "will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States" that, "like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War," will "bring the nation to the brink" and represent "a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States."


"The United States Supreme Court may presently make a decision discarding marriage as an unalienable (natural) right. By defect of reason and respect for the Constitution, the decision will return the people of this country to the condition of constantly impending war characteristic of the human condition when and wherever the just premises of government are abandoned.

"A decision degrading the natural right of marriage, endowed by the Creator, to the status of a fiat right, fabricated by government, will be unconstitutional on the face of it, because it disparages an antecedent right, retained by the people, which disparagement is explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution's Ninth amendment. Under present circumstances, the decision will also invite conflict on account of the openly flaunted prejudice of two of the justices participating in it.

"If the United States Supreme Court presumes to impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, respectively, or the people, without addressing the issue of unalienable right it involves, with reasoning that respects God-endowed right (which is the logic by which the American people asserted, and still claim to possess and exercise, sovereign authority over themselves), the Court's decision will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States. It will be a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States. It will therefore be just cause for war.
 
Once you have read that and presumably reaffirmed your view that Alan Keyes is a lunatic, try flipping the question around. Suppose SCOTUS rules against gay marriage. States don't have to do them, and if a state does, other states don't have to honor them. Would that also be a cause for war?

Or, if you think Keyes is right, do you think gay activists and their supporters would be justified in starting a war? If one is justified, why not the other?

I find it fascinating that Keyes references Dred Scott.
 
Once you have read that and presumably reaffirmed your view that Alan Keyes is a lunatic, try flipping the question around. Suppose SCOTUS rules against gay marriage. States don't have to do them, and if a state does, other states don't have to honor them. Would that also be a cause for war?

Or, if you think Keyes is right, do you think gay activists and their supporters would be justified in starting a war? If one is justified, why not the other?

I find it fascinating that Keyes references Dred Scott.
Ha, you don't think the pro-gay marriage lobby wouldn't claim it's a just cause for war? You realize, at least the way I read it, he's using hyperbole. He's not saying people have the right to take up arms and inciting violence against the gov't/military/gay couples to protest gay marriage. Is it not possible that he didn't mean "war" literally or do you think by "the war on women" language the liberal mean conservatives are taking up arms and acting out in violence against women? Come on, you are reaching.

Why do you find it interesting he references Dred Scott. Another ruling the USSC got wrong, decided by 9 men in black robes, instead of the Congress or state legislatures. In Dred Scott, Emerson was violating the law. With gay marriage no one is violating an established law, the pro-gay crowd is claiming gay marriage is a constitutional right. In reality the Constitution is silent on gay marriage. It neither prohibits it or considers it an established right. The states are free to pass gay marriage laws but it doesn't make it a Constitutional right. We need to do legal cartwheels to create, out of thin air, a Constitutional right to gay marriage.
 
Ha, you don't think the pro-gay marriage lobby wouldn't claim it's a just cause for war? You realize, at least the way I read it, he's using hyperbole. He's not saying people have the right to take up arms and inciting violence against the gov't/military/gay couples to protest gay marriage. Is it not possible that he didn't mean "war" literally or do you think by "the war on women" language the liberal mean conservatives are taking up arms and acting out in violence against women? Come on, you are reaching.

Why do you find it interesting he references Dred Scott. Another ruling the USSC got wrong, decided by 9 men in black robes, instead of the Congress or state legislatures. In Dred Scott, Emerson was violating the law. With gay marriage no one is violating an established law, the pro-gay crowd is claiming gay marriage is a constitutional right. In reality the Constitution is silent on gay marriage. It neither prohibits it or considers it an established right. The states are free to pass gay marriage laws but it doesn't make it a Constitutional right. We need to do legal cartwheels to create, out of thin air, a Constitutional right to gay marriage.

So what happens when a gay couple with children moves to Alabama (I know, it's ridiculous as nobody would willingly move there) and Alabama doesn't recognize them? Is that ok to limit people as to where they can live?

By the way, can anyone answer WTF they care if gay people get married? I still don't understand how that can possibly affect their quality of life, let alone constitutional rights.
 
With gay marriage no one is violating an established law, the pro-gay crowd is claiming gay marriage is a constitutional right. In reality the Constitution is silent on gay marriage. It neither prohibits it or considers it an established right. The states are free to pass gay marriage laws but it doesn't make it a Constitutional right. We need to do legal cartwheels to create, out of thin air, a Constitutional right to gay marriage.
Gay marriage is not a constitutional right. Straight marriage is not a constitutional right. No marriage is a constitutional right.

But the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says that laws must apply to all citizens equally. If states pass laws allowing citizens to marry then they must allow all citizens to marry, not just the heterosexual citizens. States should not be able to restrict gay couples from marrying any more than they can restrict gay people from voting or driving a car or owning property.
 
So what happens when a gay couple with children moves to Alabama (I know, it's ridiculous as nobody would willingly move there) and Alabama doesn't recognize them? Is that ok to limit people as to where they can live?

By the way, can anyone answer WTF they care if gay people get married? I still don't understand how that can possibly affect their quality of life, let alone constitutional rights.
What would happen if Utah passed a law permitting polygamy? Now, answer your own question about a couple moving to Alabama.

Your second question isn't relevant as to the issue of whether or not the Constitution recognizes gay marriage as a right. It is relevant if you are talking about whether a state should pass a law allowing gay marriage. However, I will answer your question as I did so yesterday and quote the editors of the National Review which sum up my view nicely.

"An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to a newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples. On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. On the newer understanding, marriage is primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and children.

We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not. But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."


I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage (which is what Justice Alito was alluding to in his question to the gov't lawyer, in which she gave a bumbling, stumbling answer in response). Even more to the point, if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. So, stop discriminating against single people, like myself, and get the gov't out of marriage.




Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors
 
  • Like
Reactions: swagsurfer02
What would happen if Utah passed a law permitting polygamy? Now, answer your own question about a couple moving to Alabama.

Your second question isn't relevant as to the issue of whether or not the Constitution recognizes gay marriage as a right. It is relevant if you are talking about whether a state should pass a law allowing gay marriage. However, I will answer your question as I did so yesterday and quote the editors of the National Review which sum up my view nicely.

"An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to a newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples. On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. On the newer understanding, marriage is primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and children.

We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not. But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."


I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage (which is what Justice Alito was alluding to in his question to the gov't lawyer, in which she gave a bumbling, stumbling answer in response). Even more to the point, if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. So, stop discriminating against single people, like myself, and get the gov't out of marriage.

The difference is that polygamy is restricted across all segments of the population. If you allowed two women and one man to marry but not three men, you would be in violation of equal protection. This really isn't that hard. The only question that the supremes really needs to answer is if government has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to only a man and a woman.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors
 
What would happen if Utah passed a law permitting polygamy? Now, answer your own question about a couple moving to Alabama.

Your second question isn't relevant as to the issue of whether or not the Constitution recognizes gay marriage as a right. It is relevant if you are talking about whether a state should pass a law allowing gay marriage. However, I will answer your question as I did so yesterday and quote the editors of the National Review which sum up my view nicely.

"An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to a newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples. On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. On the newer understanding, marriage is primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and children.

We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not. But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."


I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage (which is what Justice Alito was alluding to in his question to the gov't lawyer, in which she gave a bumbling, stumbling answer in response). Even more to the point, if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. So, stop discriminating against single people, like myself, and get the gov't out of marriage.




Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors
What would happen if Utah passed a law permitting polygamy? Now, answer your own question about a couple moving to Alabama.

Your second question isn't relevant as to the issue of whether or not the Constitution recognizes gay marriage as a right. It is relevant if you are talking about whether a state should pass a law allowing gay marriage. However, I will answer your question as I did so yesterday and quote the editors of the National Review which sum up my view nicely.

"An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to a newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples. On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. On the newer understanding, marriage is primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and children.

We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not. But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."


I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage (which is what Justice Alito was alluding to in his question to the gov't lawyer, in which she gave a bumbling, stumbling answer in response). Even more to the point, if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. So, stop discriminating against single people, like myself, and get the gov't out of marriage.




Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors

That's not the question at hand, though, is it? The question is regarding two unrelated adults of the same sex who wish to get married. Period. Full stop.

Again, what is it about same-sex marriage that somehow negatively impacts your life to the point that you (and others) want to prevent it?
 
A law that restricts what one sex can do, but not the other, and vice versa.

Interesting, I thought we figured that out a long time ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
That's not the question at hand, though, is it? The question is regarding two unrelated adults of the same sex who wish to get married. Period. Full stop.

Again, what is it about same-sex marriage that somehow negatively impacts your life to the point that you (and others) want to prevent it?

The possibility that the gays will be better at it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to a newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples. On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. On the newer understanding, marriage is primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and children.

We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not. But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."

None of this makes sense to me. You are against gay marriage because straights already ruined marriage? Or you are for gay marriage with the note that you are disappointed in the direction the straights have taken marriage?
 
What would happen if Utah passed a law permitting polygamy? Now, answer your own question about a couple moving to Alabama.

Your second question isn't relevant as to the issue of whether or not the Constitution recognizes gay marriage as a right. It is relevant if you are talking about whether a state should pass a law allowing gay marriage. However, I will answer your question as I did so yesterday and quote the editors of the National Review which sum up my view nicely.

"An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to a newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples. On the older understanding, society and, to a lesser extent, the government needed to shape sexual behavior—specifically, the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children—to promote the well-being of those children. On the newer understanding, marriage is primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and children.

We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not. But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."


I support the older view of marriage, however, if the new view is flavor that wins the day then I don't see how you outlaw other forms of marriage (which is what Justice Alito was alluding to in his question to the gov't lawyer, in which she gave a bumbling, stumbling answer in response). Even more to the point, if the old view is archaic/obsolete then the question is required, "why do we nee a social institution of marriage, let alone a gov't backed one". The newer understanding of marriage doesn't provide a strong rationale for either. So, stop discriminating against single people, like myself, and get the gov't out of marriage.




Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417600/constitution-silent-same-sex-marriage-editors


That's a lot of words to cover up your obvious bigotry. Just come out of the closet already.

Oh and let me know when Utah legalizes polygamy and we'll debate that. In the interim lets stick to the actual topic at hand rather than constant deflection.
 
That's not the question at hand, though, is it? The question is regarding two unrelated adults of the same sex who wish to get married. Period. Full stop.

Again, what is it about same-sex marriage that somehow negatively impacts your life to the point that you (and others) want to prevent it?
One can't ask another question on a message board? If you are going to say every state has to recognize gay marriages from Iowa then you are saying if a state passed polygamy every state would have to recognize that marriage. What, does that make you uncomfortable? Why do you care what consenting adults do? How is it hurting you?

As stated in a previous post you are asking an irrelevant question to the one that has been central in this threads, the constitutional issue. Stop making it personal and look at it legally.

And again, I have explained why I'm against gay marriage. BTW, "negatively impacting your life" is a stupid argument for or against a law. I don't plan on harvesting my organs and don't know anyone who would be interested, but I support laws that make it illegal. There are lots of laws that don't negatively impact my life that I support, and I suspect you do too. I'd recommend dropping that argument and stick to the discrimination argument, at least that is well reasoned and has some merit.
 
One can't ask another question on a message board? If you are going to say every state has to recognize gay marriages from Iowa then you are saying if a state passed polygamy every state would have to recognize that marriage. What, does that make you uncomfortable? Why do you care what consenting adults do? How is it hurting you?

As stated in a previous post you are asking an irrelevant question to the one that has been central in this threads, the constitutional issue. Stop making it personal and look at it legally.

And again, I have explained why I'm against gay marriage. BTW, "negatively impacting your life" is a stupid argument for or against a law. I don't plan on harvesting my organs and don't know anyone who would be interested, but I support laws that make it illegal. There are lots of laws that don't negatively impact my life that I support, and I suspect you do too. I'd recommend dropping that argument and stick to the discrimination argument, at least that is well reasoned and has some merit.
The problem with the anti- same-sex marriage group is that more often than not religious arguments are brought to the table. Deal with the legality of this single issue first. Bringing in "what about..." tarnishes the debate.
 
LINK

Joining other Religious Right activists who warn that the Supreme Court will spark a civil war if the it strikes down bans on same-sex marriage, Alan Keyes writes in WorldNetDaily today that a ruling in favor of gay rights will "be just cause for war."

Keyes claims that such a decision "will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States" that, "like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War," will "bring the nation to the brink" and represent "a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States."

Why even give conservative freaks like AK a forum to air his stupidity?
 
all I know is the definition of marriage in the state of texas and in my church are both: one man and one woman. I cannot change that, I doubt the supreme court can change that.
 
all I know is the definition of marriage in the state of texas and in my church are both: one man and one woman. I cannot change that, I doubt the supreme court can change that.
The SCOTUS can't change the way your church feels about it, but I bet they can change the way the state of Texas handles the issue.
 
One can't ask another question on a message board? If you are going to say every state has to recognize gay marriages from Iowa then you are saying if a state passed polygamy every state would have to recognize that marriage. What, does that make you uncomfortable? Why do you care what consenting adults do? How is it hurting you?

As stated in a previous post you are asking an irrelevant question to the one that has been central in this threads, the constitutional issue. Stop making it personal and look at it legally.

And again, I have explained why I'm against gay marriage. BTW, "negatively impacting your life" is a stupid argument for or against a law. I don't plan on harvesting my organs and don't know anyone who would be interested, but I support laws that make it illegal. There are lots of laws that don't negatively impact my life that I support, and I suspect you do too. I'd recommend dropping that argument and stick to the discrimination argument, at least that is well reasoned and has some merit.

There is no reasoning with bigoted cult members that have no problem oppressing people different than them....so I won't.

I don't blame you for grasping at straws. It has to be tough to accept that most backward religious influence in this country is losing the little power it has left. Your side has already lost in public opinion so it's inevitable. I get it, losing sucks.
 
One can't ask another question on a message board? If you are going to say every state has to recognize gay marriages from Iowa then you are saying if a state passed polygamy every state would have to recognize that marriage. What, does that make you uncomfortable? Why do you care what consenting adults do? How is it hurting you?

As stated in a previous post you are asking an irrelevant question to the one that has been central in this threads, the constitutional issue. Stop making it personal and look at it legally.

And again, I have explained why I'm against gay marriage. BTW, "negatively impacting your life" is a stupid argument for or against a law. I don't plan on harvesting my organs and don't know anyone who would be interested, but I support laws that make it illegal. There are lots of laws that don't negatively impact my life that I support, and I suspect you do too. I'd recommend dropping that argument and stick to the discrimination argument, at least that is well reasoned and has some merit.

A topic for another time, but your comparison doesn't necessarily hold true. The other states would have to recognize one marriage, not several.

But, more importantly it is a weak argent. Instead of arguing the merits you yell, but Polygamy! If you, Phantom, believe the several states don't have to recognize ssm, you clearly don't think they have to with poly...so why are you arguing for it?

Second, it isn't ripe. I'm happy to rejoin the discussion when the State issue of Polygamy actually tears its head, as in a state actually recognizes it.
 
Gay marriage is not a constitutional right. Straight marriage is not a constitutional right. No marriage is a constitutional right.

But the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says that laws must apply to all citizens equally. If states pass laws allowing citizens to marry then they must allow all citizens to marry, not just the heterosexual citizens. States should not be able to restrict gay couples from marrying any more than they can restrict gay people from voting or driving a car or owning property.

Yep. That seems clear enough.
 
If states don't have to recognize other state's marriages, does that mean I can marry different people in different states and not run afoul of bigamy laws?
 
Enemy? I have fellow countrymen that have different opinions and views. I don't have enemies....
He probably doesn't have you in his crosshairs. When you are being attacked, it's wise to recognize you are being attacked and react accordingly. Enemy is an appropriate word for Mr. Alan Keys. Try being more controvercial and I'm sure you will attract an enemy or two of your own, they make life more interesting.
 
He probably doesn't have you in his crosshairs. When you are being attacked, it's wise to recognize you are being attacked and react accordingly. Enemy is an appropriate word for Mr. Alan Keys. Try being more controvercial and I'm sure you will attract an enemy or two of your own, they make life more interesting.


Totally understand where you are coming from. But in the grand scheme of things.....he has zero influence even in his own party. He was written off a long time ago. It's just a sad human being trying to stay relevant.
 
Whenever I hear a man staunchly, staunchly oppose gay marriage, the first thought I have, is that the guy is an extremely sexually frustrated homosexual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
So what happens when a gay couple with children moves to Alabama (I know, it's ridiculous as nobody would willingly move there) and Alabama doesn't recognize them? Is that ok to limit people as to where they can live?

By the way, can anyone answer WTF they care if gay people get married? I still don't understand how that can possibly affect their quality of life, let alone constitutional rights.
I believe SCOTUS will at least hold that States have to accept that if gays get married in a state where it's legal, it has to be honored in any state. It's the 14th amendment(due process)
 
Register just profiled a divorced ssm couple. One remarried, but her spouse died in NE, and she had to pay inheritance.

Is that how we want this to be? Sure, you are married, but live in another state and get screwed? Doesn't seem to be a good purpose for it.
 
The problem with the anti- same-sex marriage group is that more often than not religious arguments are brought to the table. Deal with the legality of this single issue first. Bringing in "what about..." tarnishes the debate.
Not once have I brought in religion to explain my disagreement with same-sex marriage. If some people (ie Martin L. King) bring in religion to express the evils of racial discrimination, this doesn't "tarnish the debate" or negate the argument that racial discrimination should be done away with.
 
There is no reasoning with bigoted cult members that have no problem oppressing people different than them....so I won't.

I don't blame you for grasping at straws. It has to be tough to accept that most backward religious influence in this country is losing the little power it has left. Your side has already lost in public opinion so it's inevitable. I get it, losing sucks.
Powerful rebuttal on your part. LOL.
 
A topic for another time, but your comparison doesn't necessarily hold true. The other states would have to recognize one marriage, not several.

But, more importantly it is a weak argent. Instead of arguing the merits you yell, but Polygamy! If you, Phantom, believe the several states don't have to recognize ssm, you clearly don't think they have to with poly...so why are you arguing for it?

Second, it isn't ripe. I'm happy to rejoin the discussion when the State issue of Polygamy actually tears its head, as in a state actually recognizes it.
Sure it holds true. Are you back to your silly comparison that ssm is like interracial marriage. We've been down this road.

I'm not "yelling" anything, I'm trying to get your folks to see your hypocrisy. You wouldn't let Utah's definition of marriage (allowing polygamy) to dictate the marriage laws in the other 49 states, but you see now problem doing this with ssm. Hypocrites. I'm saying the states shouldn't have to recognize marriage laws from other states in either case. It would be up to the states.

It isn't ripe? WTF does that mean? WWJD brought it up today (or whenever) because even he concedes it's the next chapter in this novel. So, you only think about things when they are upon you. You aren't very good at chess, are you?
 
Register just profiled a divorced ssm couple. One remarried, but her spouse died in NE, and she had to pay inheritance.

Is that how we want this to be? Sure, you are married, but live in another state and get screwed? Doesn't seem to be a good purpose for it.
Let the states create laws as they see fit. Stop being a big nanny gov't guy. I know you want the feds/courts to resolve all problems. Read some history books. That's not what the framers had in mind.
 
ADVERTISEMENT